Annotation. Three main stages of the confrontation between the Russian and Western European civilizations on Novgorod land in the period from the 13th to the 15th centuries, from the Battle of the Neva (1240), the siege and capture of Landskrona (1301), to the foundation of the Oreshek fortress on an island in the mouth of the Neva and the signing of the famous Orekhovets treaty of "Eternal peace" (1323). The key ways of including this topic in the composition of the urban planning, architectural and monumental heritage of St. Petersburg are traced.

Reading the Manuscript of Magnus, King of Sveiskago - one of the most famous texts created in the North-West of the Russian lands, most likely at the beginning of the 15th century, and dedicated primarily to the confrontation between the Russian and Western European civilizations - we draw attention to a rather clear historiosophical scheme dividing this confrontation in three key stages.

The first of them is the coming to Russia of one of the largest Swedish military leaders, and later the primate of the Swedish state, Jarl Birger. The campaign was directly related to the military operations undertaken within the framework of the so-called second crusade against the Finnish pagans, and thus belonged to the number of not only military-political, but also religious-political enterprises. In the Life of Alexander Nevsky, for all its brevity, this point is emphasized repeatedly and very clearly: Birger came "from a Western country, who are called servants of God," he is "the king of the Roman part" and, thus, a representative of the entire Western Christian world. Birger Magnusson's ability to develop land is beyond doubt: as the Swedish tradition remembers, a decade later he founded Stockholm, which later became the capital of Sweden.

Novgorod was defended by the greatest commander and politician of the then Russian world, Prince Alexander Yaroslavich. The text of his Life repeatedly emphasizes the piety of the prince - we are talking about praying in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral during the advance of the troops, and about the performance with small forces, “relying on St. Trinity ”, and about the vision of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb on the night before the battle. Thus, for the Russian side it was not only about physical battle, but also about spiritual warfare.

As the Manuscript of Magnush briefly informs, Birger - or, as we called him, "Belger '," was defeated on the Izhora River (1240), and Prince Alexander won a glorious victory, earning the honorary nickname Nevsky (since the battle took place near the mouth of the Neva, and both sides fought primarily for control over it). Thus, the first confrontation between Russia and Europe on the banks of the Neva ended with the expulsion of uninvited guests from the West and the preservation of Novgorod's control over the Neva lands.

The second stage began with the arrival of a new army on the Neva from the West. It was led by an experienced commander and statesman, who also happened to be at the head of the Swedish state for some time, named Torgils Knutsson. The new invasion actually completed the third crusade, during which the Swedes managed to annex vast lands on the territory of modern Finland and establish their outpost on the Karelian Isthmus - the fortress city of Vyborg (1293). Arriving at the mouth of the Neva, the Swedes intended to build on their success. According to historians' calculations, the fortress they founded on a promontory formed by the main course of the Neva River and the Okhta River, which is smaller in width and depth, covered almost 15 thousand square meters. m, which was almost twice the area of ​​the Vyborg fortress.

For the construction of the newly founded fortress, architects (or military engineers), who had previously built in Rome, with the blessing of the Pope, were invited. Finally, the fortress, founded in the midst of dense forests and swampy swamps, was immediately given the loud name "Landskrona", that is, the Crown ("-krona") of the land ("Lands-"). "Nomen est omen", as they said in classical antiquity: the program is visible in the name. The Swedes definitely came "seriously and for a long time."

The keen eye of the Novgorodians immediately discerned the key points of the Swedish plan. As the Novgorod I Chronicle informs, “having come from the death of svei in power to the Great Neva, bringing from his land masters, from great Rome from the Pope, the master brought him deliberately, placing the city above the Neva at the mouth of the Okhta River, and affirming an unspeakable firmness ... The crown of the earth. " As you can see, in the short message of the chronicler, both “great power” and “masters from the Pope” and the proud name of the fortress were mentioned.

The organization of resistance fell to the lot of Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, the son of Alexander Nevsky, who had already fought off the Swedes more than half a century before the events described. The next year, 1301, Prince Andrei came with the Novgorod army, "taking the city, and beat the governors and the Germans" (we continue to quote the Manuscript of Magnush). The second clash of civilizations ended, thus, with a military victory and the expulsion of the invaders.

The mouth of the Neva remained undeveloped again. In this regard, a natural question arises why the Novgorodians did not bother to found their own powerful fortress at the mouth of the Neva, especially since the Swedes had already left a little north of these places, to Vuoksa, then navigable along its entire length, approximately along the Vyborg line (in the west) - Korela (present-day Priozersk, in the east), and indicated their interest in the development of the Neva lands quite clearly. In the scientific literature, one can find a number of explanations for such a strategy, from a completely understandable unwillingness to build under the constant threat of an attack from the sea to the desire not to create a trading competitor for Novgorod, located closer to Western trading partners.

It seems to us that the thought of DS Likhachev, expressed on another occasion, deserves attention, who believed that an undeveloped, virgin space could have a special, almost sacred meaning in the eyes of Novgorodians. As a meaningful example, the scientist referred to the so-called Red Field, which encircled the historical core of Novgorod, but was deliberately left undeveloped - a space only on the horizon surrounded by a chain-necklace of suburban monasteries and temples. "Not a single building, not a single tree did not interfere with seeing this majestic crown, which surrounded itself with Novgorod on the horizon, creating an unforgettable image of a developed, inhabited country - space and comfort at the same time." If our reasoning is correct, then the mouth of the Neva could be considered by Novgorod city planners as a kind of analogue of the Red Field, which actually implied a strategy of saving not only what we now call cultural, but also natural heritage.

At the third stage, the strategy of both sides changed significantly. The Novgorodians ceased to passively react to Western invasions and in 1323 founded the Oreshek fortress on Orekhovy Island, at the very source of the Neva from Lake Ladoga. Historical logic demanded the continuation of this reasonable step by founding a fortress at the mouth of the Neva, at the confluence of this river into the Gulf of Finland, but it had to wait for more than three and a half centuries - until Peter I founded Petersburg. As for the Swedes, having suffered two large-scale defeats (and a number of less significant ones, which we did not mention), they were concerned not so much with the conquest of new lands as with the delimitation of the already conquered possessions with their neighbors.

As a result, representative delegations from both sides arrived at the newly founded Russian fortress, who, after short negotiations, signed the famous Orekhovets peace treaty (1323). This treaty, according to which a clear border was established along its entire length between the lands of Veliky Novgorod and the Kingdom of Sweden, and moreover, between the Russian world on its northwestern borders and Western European civilization, was destined to operate for more than 270 years, right up to the Tyavzin peace ( 1595), which was concluded on our side in the suburb of Ivangorod by Moscow diplomats.

Getting acquainted with the text of the Orekhovets agreement, we can single out several aspects that are essential for our topic. First of all, from the Novgorod side, it was signed by the grandson of Alexander Nevsky, Grand Duke Yuri Danilovich. On the Swedish side, the introductory formula indicates the participation of the "Prince of Sweden Manush Oricovits", that is, the Swedish king Magnus Eriksson (as explained below, he did not personally participate in the signing ceremony, entrusting this to his diplomats). Thus, the delimitation of spheres of influence in the Neva lands again required the direct participation of senior officials from both sides, which spoke of its importance both for Novgorod and for Sweden.

Further, the text of the treaty, significant not only for Novgorod, but also for ancient Russian diplomacy as a whole, was approved at two levels - political and legal and sacred. By the first, we mean adherence to the canons of European international law of that time, to which the Swedish side was accustomed, but for the Novgorod side it was new. As noted in the Manuscript of Magnush, "the land and water have made a division, who owns what, and I have written and sealed the letters." The last formula, which we have highlighted in the text of the quotation in italics, means adherence to the legal norms of that time.

Having noted this important fact, it is necessary to make a reservation that another, third player was acting behind the stage of the negotiations, relations with whom were very significant for both the Novgorod and Swedish sides. We are talking, of course, about the Hanseatic League, whose priorities included a complete legal regulation of the regime of functioning of the trade routes in the east of the Baltic. As a result, guarantees for Hanseatic merchants from Lubeck and the "German land" as a whole were included in the text of the treaty ("... the guests of the mischief from all the German land: from Lubka, from the Gotha coast and the Sveiskaya land along the Neva to Novgorod mountain and by water, and all the guests from the Choice of the city will not overpower the guests, so the way beyond the sea is clear for our guest ”).

Speaking of the sacred aspect, we mean the fact that both in the introductory and in the final formula of the Orekhovets treaty, the kissing of the cross was mentioned, which consolidated the agreements reached. In the first case, it was mentioned that it affirmed "eternal peace", that is, not a temporary agreement, but a full-fledged and long-term agreement of the highest priority status at that time. In the second case, the punishment of God himself and the Holy Mother of God was called upon the head of the violator of the treaty. Thus, the establishment of "peace on the Neva" was conceived as meeting not only the commercial interests of both parties, but also their highest spiritual values.

Getting acquainted with the text of the Magnush Manuscript, we can make one more important remark in this connection. Its author was well acquainted with local realities: Izhora, Neva, Oreshek, Koporye are mentioned in the text of the Manuscript. It is also said about the men of Novgorod, who defended their state from foreign invaders. However, the main thing for the author is the all-Russian cause of defending the Fatherland. Russia is mentioned four times in the text, and in contexts that do not give grounds for conclusions of a different plan. "Do not step on Russia while kissing the godfather," that is, do not violate its sacred limits, - said at the very beginning of the text of the Manuscript. “Do not step on Russia on the kiss of the cross, and whoever steps, on that fire and water,” reads at the end of this text.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that, quoting in the previous presentation the text of both the Orekhovets peace treaty and the Magnush Manuscript, we understand well the difference between them. The first of these documents is a business text created directly during the events of the beginning of the XIV century. - so to speak, in medias res. The second of them is a literary text written in the form of an apocryphal testament of the Swedish king, moreover, created at the beginning of the next, 15th century, that is, after a considerable time after the events described in it.

All this is true, but the Manuscript of Magnush was highly valued in Ancient Rus, it was rewritten many times and became part of a number of authoritative chronicles - first of all, the Sophia I Chronicle, which we quoted above. Based on considerations of this kind, we considered it correct to bring into our consideration the text of Magnush's Manuscript, believing that it reflected some historiosophical attitudes that were important for medieval Novgorodians.

As a result of the three succinctly described stages, which included both military confrontation and trade cooperation, and to some extent - the exchange of cultural values, in our North-West, a border was established not only between the possessions of Veliky Novgorod and Sweden, but also between the Russian the world and Western European civilization as a whole. Being included in the Novgorod cultural heritage, it was rather quickly rethought in our country as part of the all-Russian heritage. As a result, having returned the Neva lands and founded St. Petersburg on them, Peter I essentially only continued the work of his ancestors, expanding and deepening his tasks and goals.

The events of that time are reminiscent of a modest church with a chapel and a memorial stone erected by descendants near the mouth of Izhora, that is, on the site of the Battle of the Neva. However, a much more important role in Russian history was played by the transfer of the relics of the holy blessed prince Alexander Nevsky, previously kept in Vladimir, to the monastery founded by Peter I in the new capital of Russia. The site for the founding of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery was chosen literally the next year after the founding of St. Petersburg, but formally, the year of its foundation is considered 1713. By the end of the 18th century, the status of the monastery was elevated to a laurel, which put it on a par with such ancient and venerable spiritual centers Russian civilization, like the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and, of course, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.

It is worth mentioning that the main street of St. Petersburg - Nevsky Prospekt - got its name from the Neva River, in fact, only indirectly. It directly points to the same Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which was reflected in the earlier name of the avenue, which contains a rather long for the present taste, but quite correct definition - namely, "The Great Perspective Road to the Nevsky Monastery." As historians remember, the modern, more lapidary name was fully established only by 1781.

This is a well-known fact; less often we remember that closer to the city center, right on Nevsky Prospekt, there has been a monument to Alexander Nevsky for a long time. We are talking about a wonderful "round sculpture" made by Academician S.S. Pimenov at the very beginning of the 19th century. and placed at the northern, that is, facing Nevsky Prospekt, facade of the Kazan Cathedral. A sword thrown at the prince's feet with the image of a lion - the ancient emblem of Sweden - reminds descendants of the clash of civilizations that took place in former times on the banks of the Neva.

And very few people remember that the image of Alexander Nevsky's helmet can be seen to this day in the space of one of the bas-reliefs installed on the pedestal of the Alexander Column, placed in the middle of Palace Square, right opposite the Tsar's Palace, in 1834.

Thus, the monumental and architectural text of the historical center of St. Petersburg quite fully embodied the main features of the light image of Alexander Nevsky, directly connected in the cultural heritage of Russians with the confrontation and dialogue of civilizations that took place in Novgorod times on the northwestern borders of the Russian world.

NOTES

In earlier works, we already had the opportunity to analyze in the necessary details why this vision was presented not to the prince himself, but to his younger companion, named Pelugius (see, for example: D.L. Spivak Metaphysics of St. Petersburg: Beginnings and Foundations. - SPb .: Aleteya, 2005 .-- S. 35-38).

Life speaks, in fact, of the arrival of a foreign army not from the west, but "from the midnight country", that is, from the north, which is understandable, since its authors looked at the scene from Novgorod, that is, from the south.

We are talking here about the first confrontation only within the framework of the Novgorod period and only in relation to the historiosophical scheme of the Magnush Manuscript. Historically, before that, there was also the vocation of the Varangians, and many other contacts, the analysis of the intercivilizational potential of which is included in the tasks of a special work.

Here and below we give modern geographical names, without specifically specifying this. In those years, for the Swedes, these were the rivers Nie (n) and Svarto (that is, Black), respectively.

Cit. on: Shaskolsky I.P. The struggle of Rus to preserve access to the Baltic Sea in the XIV century. - L .: Nauka, 1987 .-- P. 16.

Likhachev D.S. Ecology of culture // Idem. Native land. - M .: Education, 1983 .-- S. 89.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that on the site of the later Petersburg in the Middle Ages there were Russian settlements - for example, the village of Nevskoye Ustye. However, they could not be compared either in size or in importance with such nearby fortresses as Oreshek, Korela and Vyborg.

For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that another monument to Prince Alexander Nevsky - the work of the sculptor V.G. Kozenyuk - was installed in St. Petersburg on the square in front of the main entrance to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra relatively recently, on the eve of the city's 300th anniversary.

This image reproduces the outlines of an old helmet, which is kept in the collection of the Moscow Armory Chamber. According to the legend, which, however, does not find convincing documentary evidence for itself, it once belonged to the holy noble prince.

Spivak D.L., 2019.

The article was received on February 20, 2019.

In an abandoned industrial area, "Americans and Russians" fought over chemical weapons

In one of the former republics of the USSR, on the territory of the officially mothballed, but continuing to operate within the framework of a secret intergovernmental agreement, a plant for the production of chemical weapons, an accident occurred with an explosion and release of a military substance. Upon learning of this, the United States prepared a "mop-up" group in order to get the samples of chemical weapons of interest. Russia also pulled units of radiation, chemical and biological protection to the scene to blockade the area and completely eliminate the facility. And the confrontation began ...

Just a game

No, don't think that something terrible has happened. This is just the legend of the open airsoft championship, which took place in Parfin on September 22-24.

Airsoft is a military tactical game that initially involved training soldiers in combat. Later, the training session turned into a game, the meaning of which is to complete as many tasks as possible and die as few times as possible.

There are a number of rules for the players, but beyond safety requirements, court culture and script, what is important is ... honesty. Indeed, how to understand whether a soldier was killed or not? Indeed, in airsoft, unlike paintball, they shoot with plastic balls, and they do not leave marks on clothes ... It's simple - the player who was shot must honestly raise his hand and leave the battlefield. As the participants themselves say, only honest people come to play airsoft - there is no place for others.

Together with a group of airsoft players, we ride in the back of a KamAZ truck to the site of the official start of the game. Along the perimeter, the military protects the territory from lost mushroom pickers and onlookers. Although the balls are plastic, they hurt, no one needs injuries ... Looking at the stripes on the players' camouflage, you understand that the geography of the participants is not limited to the Novgorod region. There are representatives from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tver, Pskov ... For the first test game, as the organizers say, not bad.

At the launch site, the military from Luga acquaint spectators with samples of weapons. “It’s very difficult, you cannot lift it, you won’t go far with such a thing,” the boys from the Parthino school are discussing. Soldiers representing military equipment smile: after all, they have to make many kilometers of marches with these weapons.

Start given

Tatiana Chernikova, the organizer of the game and managing partner of the Agency for Ready-Made Solutions, said before the start of the competition that all the necessary safety measures were observed on the site: it meets high quality standards. Tatyana Chernikova thanked the guests for their participation, as well as the Government of the Novgorod Region for the opportunity to hold a large-scale tournament.

In turn, the Deputy Governor of the Novgorod Region Veronika Minina, opening the game, noted that such a championship is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky region to attract guests from all over the country.

After a short official part, the players dispersed to prepare for the game, and we returned to the camp in the back of our familiar KamAZ. We are going fun. Seasoned airsoft players share the stories of their gaming life. Someone tells how he begged his wife for a fifth camouflage, someone about a new machine gun. “My wife told me to say that I’m not henpecked,” says a tall unshaven war lover, ending the story about buying a new outfit.

There is a field kitchen in the camp, food for the players is organized, you can immediately buy Dixer tactical shoes from the general sponsor of the event Zenden Group, try to shoot from airsoft weapons. While all these little things are nice, some avid gamers don't need them. “We came not to sleep, we came to play,” they say.

Not by force, but by skill

The final battle of the second day clearly showed that a war, albeit a game one, requires not only physical strength, but also tactics. For example, numerous players of one of the teams, having taken, at first glance, an advantageous position, lost in tactics, were surrounded by the opposing team and shot.

The result of the game was not only a good mood of the participants, a sea of ​​positive emotions and photos on social networks. According to the organizers, a film will be released about this championship - about war, airsoft and patriotism.

The training game was successful, - Tatiana Chernikova summed up the results. - Experienced airsoft players noted that this project is more interesting and potentially more powerful than the existing ones. The organization of the tournament and household amenities were also at their best. Everything was foreseen in Parfin.

Already now we can safely say that the game "Confrontation: Novgorod Land" has given rise to a new direction - military-patriotic tourism. Indeed, according to the organizers, this is not the last event in the Novgorod region. It is planned that tactical competitions at the Parthian site will be held annually.

Let us remind you that large-scale competitions were organized by the "Agency of ready-made solutions" and the "Territory of active games" Polygon "with the support of the Government of the Novgorod region and brought together more than 2000 people from 12 regions of Russia in the Parfinsky district.

Tatiana YAKOVENKO, Anastasia GAVRILOVA

Photo by Tatiana Yakovenko

In an abandoned industrial area, "Americans and Russians" fought over chemical weapons

In one of the former republics of the USSR, on the territory of the officially mothballed, but continuing to operate within the framework of a secret intergovernmental agreement, a plant for the production of chemical weapons, an accident occurred with an explosion and release of a military substance. Upon learning of this, the United States prepared a "mop-up" group in order to get the samples of chemical weapons of interest. Russia also pulled units of radiation, chemical and biological protection to the scene to blockade the area and completely eliminate the facility. And the confrontation began ...

Just a game

No, don't think that something terrible has happened. This is just the legend of the open airsoft championship, which took place in Parfin on September 22-24.

Airsoft is a military tactical game that initially involved training soldiers in combat. Later, the training session turned into a game, the meaning of which is to complete as many tasks as possible and die as few times as possible.

There are a number of rules for the players, but beyond safety requirements, court culture and script, what is important is ... honesty. Indeed, how to understand whether a soldier was killed or not? Indeed, in airsoft, unlike paintball, they shoot with plastic balls, and they do not leave marks on clothes ... It's simple - the player who was shot must honestly raise his hand and leave the battlefield. As the participants themselves say, only honest people come to play airsoft - there is no place for others.

Together with a group of airsoft players, we ride in the back of a KamAZ truck to the site of the official start of the game. Along the perimeter, the military protects the territory from lost mushroom pickers and onlookers. Although the balls are plastic, they hurt, no one needs injuries ... Looking at the stripes on the players' camouflage, you understand that the geography of the participants is not limited to the Novgorod region. There are representatives from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tver, Pskov ... For the first test game, as the organizers say, not bad.

At the launch site, the military from Luga acquaint spectators with samples of weapons. " Very heavy, you can't lift it, you can't go far with that", - the boys from the Parthino school are discussing. Soldiers representing military equipment smile: after all, they have to make many kilometers of marches with these weapons.

Start given

Tatiana Chernikova, the organizer of the game and managing partner of the Agency for Ready-Made Solutions, said before the start of the competition that all the necessary safety measures were observed on the site: it meets high quality standards. Tatyana Chernikova thanked the guests for their participation, as well as the Government of the Novgorod Region for the opportunity to hold a large-scale tournament.

In turn, the Deputy Governor of the Novgorod Region Veronika Minina, opening the game, noted that such a championship is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky region to attract guests from all over the country.

After a short official part, the players dispersed to prepare for the game, and we returned to the camp in the back of our familiar KamAZ. We are going fun. Seasoned airsoft players share the stories of their gaming life. Someone tells how he begged his wife for a fifth camouflage, someone about a new machine gun. " My wife told me to say that I am not henpecked", - ending the story of buying a new outfit, says a tall unshaven war lover.

There is a field kitchen in the camp, food for the players is organized, you can immediately buy Dixer tactical shoes from the general sponsor of the event Zenden Group, try to shoot from airsoft weapons. While all these little things are nice, some avid gamers don't need them. " We came not to sleep, we came to play"They say.

Not by force, but by skill

The final battle of the second day clearly showed that a war, albeit a game one, requires not only physical strength, but also tactics. For example, numerous players of one of the teams, having taken, at first glance, an advantageous position, lost in tactics, were surrounded by the opposing team and shot.

The result of the game was not only a good mood of the participants, a sea of ​​positive emotions and photos on social networks. According to the organizers, a film will be released about this championship - about war, airsoft and patriotism.

The training game was successful, - Tatiana Chernikova summed up the results. - Experienced airsoft players noted that this project is more interesting and potentially more powerful than the existing ones. The organization of the tournament and household amenities were also at their best. Everything was foreseen in Parfin.

Already now we can safely say that the game "Confrontation: Novgorod Land" has given rise to a new direction - military-patriotic tourism. Indeed, according to the organizers, this is not the last event in the Novgorod region. It is planned that tactical competitions at the Parthian site will be held annually.

Recall that large-scale competitions were organized by the "Agency of ready-made solutions" and the "Territory of active games" Polygon "with the support of the Government of the Novgorod region and brought together more than 2000 people from 12 regions of Russia in the Parfinsky region.

Tatiana YAKOVENKO, Anastasia GAVRILOVA

Photo by Tatiana Yakovenko

History, as you know, repeats itself. Over the past centuries, the alignment of forces on the geopolitical map has changed many times, states arose and disappeared, at the will of the rulers, armies rushed to storm fortresses, many thousands of unknown soldiers perished in distant lands. The confrontation between Russia and the Teutonic Order can serve as an example of an attempt to expand the so-called "Western values" to the East of Europe, which ended in failure. The question arises as to how great were the chances of the knightly army to win.

Initial setting

At the end of the twelfth century, it was in a position that can be characterized by the famous expression "between a rock and a hard place." Batu acted in the southwest, ravaging and plundering the scattered Slavic principalities. From the Baltic side, the advancement of the German knights began. The strategic goal of the Christian army, announced by the Pope, was to bring Catholicism to the consciousness of the indigenous population, who professed paganism at that time. The Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes put up a militarily weak resistance, and the invasion at the first stage developed quite successfully. In the period from 1184 to the end of the century, a series of victories made it possible to build on the success, found the Riga fortress and gain a foothold on the bridgehead for further aggression. Rome itself announced the European crusade in 1198, it was supposed to become a kind of revenge for the defeat in the Holy Land. The methods and true goals were very far from the teachings of Christ - they had a pronounced political and economic background. In other words, the crusaders came to the land of the Estonians and Livonians to plunder and seize. On the eastern borders, the Teutonic Order and Russia at the beginning of the 13th century had a common border.

Initial military conflicts

Relations between the Teutons and the Russians were complex, their character was formed on the basis of the emerging military and political realities. Trade interests prompted temporary alliances and joint operations against pagan tribes when situations dictated certain conditions. The general Christian faith, however, did not prevent the knights from gradually pursuing a policy of Catholicizing the Slavic population, which caused some concern. The year 1212 was marked by a military campaign of the combined 15,000-strong Novgorod-Polotsk army against a number of castles. A brief truce followed. The Teutonic Order and Russia entered a period of conflicts that were to last for decades.

13th century Western sanctions

The Chronicle of Livonia by Henry of Latvia contains information about the siege by Novgorodians of the Wenden castle in 1217. The enemies of the Germans were also the Danes, who wanted to snatch their piece of the Baltic pie. They founded an outpost, the Taani Lynn fortress (now Revel). This created additional difficulties, including those related to supply. In connection with these and many other circumstances, I was forced to revise my military policy and the Teutonic Order many times. Relations with Russia were complicated, raids on outposts continued, and serious measures were required to counteract.

However, the ammunition did not quite match the ambitions. Pope Gregory IX simply did not have enough economic resources to conduct full-scale hostilities and, in addition to ideological measures, he could only oppose the Russian force with an economic blockade of Novgorod, which was done in 1228. Today these actions would be called sanctions. They were not crowned with success, the Gotland merchants did not sacrifice profits in the name of papal aggressive aspirations and for the most part ignored calls for a blockade.

The myth of the hordes of "knight-dogs"

More or less successful campaigns on the possessions of the knights continued during the years of the reign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the victory at Yuryev included this city in the list of Novgorod tributaries (1234). In fact, the image of hordes of armored crusaders, who are storming Russian cities, created by filmmakers (first of all, obviously, it did not quite correspond to the historical truth, familiar to the mass consciousness. The Teutonic Order and Russia in the thirties of the XIII century had different resource bases, and their ratio was more and more not in favor of the German conquerors.

Alexander Nevskiy

The Novgorod prince earned his title by defeating the Swedes, who dared to land in 1240 on Russian soil, at the mouth of the Neva. The intentions of the "landing" were not in doubt, and the young but already experienced military leader (his father's school) led his small detachment into a decisive offensive. Victory was a reward for courage, and it was not the last. The next crusade to Russia of the Teutonic Order, undertaken by the knights in 1242, ended in failure for the invaders. The battle plan, which later received the name "Battle on the Ice", was brilliantly thought out and successfully implemented. Prince Alexander Nevsky took into account the features of the terrain, used non-standard tactics, enlisted the support of the Horde, received serious military assistance from it, in general, used all available resources and won a victory that made his name famous for centuries. Significant enemy forces went to the bottom, and the rest were killed or captured by the warriors. 1262 is marked in history textbooks as the date of the conclusion of the alliance of Novgorod with the Lithuanian prince Mindovg, together with whom the siege of Venden was carried out, not entirely successful, but not unsuccessful: the combined forces caused significant damage to the enemy. After this event, the Teutonic Order and Russia almost cease mutual military activity for six years. Agreements on the division of spheres of influence that are beneficial for Novgorod are concluded.

Ending the conflict

All wars end someday. The long-term confrontation in which the Livonian Teutonic Order and Russia came together also ended. We can briefly mention the last significant episode of the long-term conflict - now almost forgotten. It took place in February 1268 and showed the impotence of the united Danish-German army, which sought to turn the general strategic situation in its favor. At the first stage, the knights managed to push the positions of the warriors led by the son of Prince Alexander Nevsky Dmitry. Then there was a counterattack of the five thousandth army, and the enemy fled. Formally, the battle ended in a draw: the Russian troops did not manage to take the fortress besieged by them (perhaps such a task was not posed for fear of large losses), but this and other smaller-scale attempts to seize the initiative of the Teutons failed. Today only preserved ancient castles remind of them.

A. G. Kuzmin

The specifics of the development of the Novgorod land in the XI-XIII centuries. was largely associated with the previous time, because it was in antiquity that peculiar features of the Novgorod socio-political structure, and the landmarks of the city economy, and the principles of the relationship of Novgorod with other lands of Russia were laid.

In the historical literature, the main discussions were associated with the beginning of Novgorod. The chronicle dates its origin to about 864: Rurik came from Ladoga and founded Novgorod (legends about the more ancient existence of the city were formed not earlier than the 17th century). Among archaeologists, there are discrepancies in the assessment of this ancient testimony of the chronicle. The well-known connoisseur of Novgorod antiquities V.L. Yanin attributes the emergence of Novgorod only to the 10th century. G.P. Smirnova argued that the oldest Novgorod ceramics, similar to West Slavic ones, was deposited in the oldest layers of Novgorod just at the time indicated in the chronicle - in the second half of the 9th century. But the differences in chronology are not so fundamentally significant - different materials are taken into account, from different excavations, different dating methods are used (for example, accurate dating by modern methods of street pavements indicates only the time of the appearance of these pavements, and not the settlement itself). It is more important to evaluate the content of the chronicle message: to what extent is this source reliable.

There are also discrepancies in the definition of the ethnic composition of the original settlement of Novgorod. But this is also natural: along the Volga-Baltic route, multilingual detachments and simply settlers walked from west to east. In the legend about the vocation of the Varangians, dated in the annals of the 50-60s. IX century, there are two Slavic tribes and three Finno-Ugric tribes as an already formed federation and, therefore, arose earlier than this time. And here there are also ethnically indefinite “Varangians” who clearly came here from the events described earlier, even if a measure far from the Baltic had to pay tribute to them.

The different opinions of researchers are also predetermined by the fact that the early Novgorod chronicles preserved less material than the later ones - the Sofia-Novgorod ones. This is especially noticeable when describing the events of the 11th century, which the Novgorod First Chronicle conveys, following mainly one of the editions of the Tale of Bygone Years (until 1115). It was this circumstance that gave rise to the widespread opinion that there was no independent chronicle writing in Novgorod until the 12th century. In principle, the discrepancies in the definition of the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle are one of the many consequences of a different understanding of the very essence of the chronicle: a single tree or the coexistence and struggle of different traditions expressing the interests of different political forces and ideological aspirations.

Judging by the preface to the Novgorod First Chronicle, this set arose between 1204 - 1261. According to a number of signs, it is determined that the code was compiled in the middle of the 13th century, and later it was brought up to the 30s. XIV century. It was until the middle of the XIII century that the Novgorod source was used by the compiler of the Rostov collection. The code used the edition of the "Tale of Bygone Years" in chronological limits up to 1115 (but without contracts), which served as the basis for this branch of the Novgorod chronicle, but it was neither the only one, nor the oldest.

In this sense, it is important to refer to the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the 15th century. In general, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles are more material for the annalistic corpus than the corpus itself. The chronicler leaves notes, perhaps for himself, like: “look in Kiev”, without revealing the content of the corresponding text of the “Tale of Bygone Years”. It is due to the incompleteness of work on the text in the annals that the same events are often duplicated under different years. But in this disordered material, traces of an earlier Novgorod chronicle are visible, including those completely unreported in the Novgorod First Chronicle. For example, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the century provide material about the time of Yaroslav's reign (the first half of the 11th century), whom The Tale of Bygone Years does not know. And this material is clearly of Novgorod origin.

A certain stage of work within the framework of this tradition was the compilation, compiled in the 80s of the XII century, presumably by Herman Voyataya, who died in 1188. At the same time, it is important that in the Synodal (oldest) list of the Novgorod First Chronicle, this chronicler designates himself under the year 1144: “Set me up to help Archbishop Saint Niphon”. It is very likely that it was in this set that the Rostov chronicle was also involved, namely, “Old Rostov Chronicler”. His influence is noticeable in the stories about Moses Ugrin, the sister of Yaroslav Predslav, Mstislav “Lutom” and some others. Moreover, in this case, we are talking about the collection, that is, the creation of a historical work characteristic of feudal Russia and Russia, combining different written sources. In such vaults, previously compiled vaults usually continued, often without rework. Therefore, most likely, during the 12th century, there was clearly more than one center for keeping chronicle records in Novgorod.

Those of the researchers who recognized the existence of the Novgorod chronicle in the 11th century (A.A. Shakhmatov, B.A. Rybakov, a number of authors of the 19th century) usually looked for traces of it in the 50s. For Shakhmatov, this is Novgorod material, which was first used in Kiev in the “Primary Code of 1095” he proposed, and he looked for traces of it in the “Tale of Bygone Years”. B.A. Rybakov talks about the "Ostromir Chronicle", to a greater extent using the material of the Sofia-Novgorod Chronicles, that is, with the inevitable exit to a different tradition than that reflected in the "Tale of Bygone Years." This dating is confirmed by an important indication of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles under the year 1030. In them, in comparison with the "Tale of Bygone Years", it is added that in 1030 Yaroslav, after the creation of the city of Yuryev, returned to Novgorod and collected "300 teach books from the elders and priest's children." And then follows an exceptionally important “reminder”: “Archbishop Akim of Novgorod, and byasha his disciple Ephraim, who teach us, have reposed”. Ephraim apparently headed the Novgorod diocese, like Anastas and later Hilarion the Kiev church. The first (or one of the first) Novgorod chronicler defines himself as a disciple of Ephraim, and this leads precisely to the middle of the 11th century, since Ephraim is already mentioned in the past tense, because Ephraim served as head of the Novgorod church until the approval of the Byzantine metropolis in Kiev in 1037.

At the heart of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is a collection of 1418, which has not come down to us directly. But the compilers of the younger edition of the Novgorod First Chronicle were apparently familiar with him. Chronological confusion is noted in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, which may indicate the absence of absolute dates in the original text: the dates were put down either by the chronicler of the middle of the 11th century, or by later chroniclers.

In the XII-XIII centuries. The Novgorod land steadily adhered to the communal-republican forms of hostel that persisted for many centuries and were not completely suppressed by the ideology and practice of serfdom. It has already been said that in terms of the specifics of its socio-political structure, Novgorod is close to the cities of the Slavic Baltic Pomorie (South Baltic). This specificity was the originality of the Novgorod land within the framework of the East Slavic state and ethnic unification: the initial weakness of the princely power; great authority of religious authority (both in paganism and in Christianity); involvement in socio-political processes of different strata of the population (in addition to slaves).

From the borders of the Novgorod land, this system of socio-political relations spread far to the east, up to Siberia, as shown, in particular, by D.K. Zelenin: It is characteristic that such a system is especially widespread in those territories where agriculture exists, but it is unstable, and therefore crafts and trade play an important role. Another point is also important - there has never been and will never be serfdom in these territories, since feudal estates do not make sense here: a smerd forcibly tied to a place will not give anything to its potential owner. But "tribute" and "dues" will remain in these regions for centuries. The absence of serfdom was also influenced by the fact that in the countryside, which was in harsh and unstable climatic conditions, the initiative of each worker and the observance of the principle of "artel" were required. This, in turn, caused the need to preserve the communal social structure, which was dominated by the principle of elective leaders, when persons in elected positions exercised internal management of the community and the representation of the community outside of it.

To understand the uniqueness of the socio-political structure of the Novgorod land, it is necessary to take into account the fact that there was a hierarchy of cities in the Novgorod land - all cities were considered “suburbs” of Novgorod and had to bear certain duties in relation to it. But inside each of these cities, the administration was built from the bottom up, as well as in Novgorod itself. Of course, with the deepening of social contradictions, between the “top” and “bottom” of urban society, confrontations often arose, and even open struggle. But the "smerd", as the main category of the population, was a significant figure at the beginning of the 11th century, and in the 12th century, and later, when the princes, in opposition to the boyars, supported the "smerds".

The Novgorod land had its own specificity of interaction between Slavic and non-Slavic tribes. The fact is that non-Slavic tribes in most cases kept their isolation for quite a long time, and their inner life remained traditional. A tribute was paid to Novgorod as a whole or to individual Novgorod secular and church feudal lords, these tribes and the collection of such "tribute" was the main form of subordination of non-Slavic tribes to the main city of the region or its "suburbs". Among the tributary tribes of Novgorod were Izhora, Vod (off the coast of the Gulf of Finland), Karela, Terskoy coast in the south of the Kola Peninsula, Em (Finns), Pechera, Yugra. Moreover, in the east, in the Urals (the land of the Pechora and Ugra), there were no graveyards to collect tribute, and special squads were sent there. Collecting "tribute" usually took place peacefully, with mutual consent, although, of course, there were also cases when Novgorod warriors were engaged in robberies. But on the whole, the situation in Novgorod's relations with the eastern and northern tribes is reflected in the Karelian-Finnish epic: there is no concept of an external enemy in it, and hostile forces are hiding in the dungeons or in heaven.

Novgorod also claimed to collect tribute from the tribes of the Eastern Baltic. But from the end of the XII century, German crusaders began to penetrate into this region, with whom Novgorod would later conduct a constant and difficult struggle. The center of Novgorod's influence on the Eastern Baltic tribes was the city of Yuryev, founded in 1030 by Yaroslav the Wise. The struggle for Yuryev will for a long time be the most important link in the opposition to the "onslaught to the east" of the crusaders. The tribes located on the territory of the Novgorod land proper, as a rule, acted in alliance with the Novgorodians against the onslaught of the Germans and Scandinavians from the west.

The main elements of Novgorod self-government proper are the veche, the institute of posadniks, the institute of tysyatsky, the institute of elders and the economic and managerial positions associated with these institutes. Initially, the Magi played an important independent role in paganism, and after the adoption of Christianity - bishops and archbishops. The role of these various institutions is revealed in connection with some kind of conflicts: either between the prince and the city, or within the dominant “golden belts” - applicants for higher positions, or between the “upper classes” and social “lower classes” of the city.

The usual impression of Novgorod self-government as an uncontrollable freeman is formed under the influence of the sum of the chronicle news. But the chronicles do not report on the daily, "routine" affairs of the chronicle, reflecting on their pages only some important events. But even the information that has been preserved is evidence of the high political activity of the Novgorod population, which is possible only under conditions of certain legal protection.

The cardinal institution in the system of self-government was the veche, which was a kind of continuation of the obligatory “popular assemblies” in any tribal associations (territorial and consanguineous). The very fact of the veche's existence is often questioned, and underneath it is supposed to be some kind of narrow meeting of the "top", which passes off its decision as a "nationwide" one. There must have been such speculations, but they say that once matters were decided at a general meeting.

In the XII-XIII centuries it was the “veche” and its decisions that corrected the behavior of the executive branch. People's assemblies actually recorded in the annals are most often presented as something extraordinary, caused by unexpected problems. At some stage, they apparently became such. But the need to refer to the opinion of the veche, even when solving obviously dubious issues, is an argument in favor of the people's assembly: it cannot be forced, and therefore must be deceived. Of course, real deeds were often done behind the backs of the “eternals”. But if Novgorod had to really resist someone or something, then it was impossible to do without a "veche". Consequently, the very "extraordinary" nature of the people's assemblies is a kind of evidence of the "highest" criterion of power, as the obligation to resolve urgent issues facing the entire tribal or territorial organization. And in some cases it was the decision of the "veche" that blocked - right or wrong - the boyars' intentions.

In the practice of Novgorod political life, the opinion and decision of the “veche” had to be addressed more than once, and the chronicles report in a number of cases about the opposition of the “veche” between the aristocratic “Sofia” and the handicraft-merchant “Trade” side, that is, about meetings of different either territorially or socially united Novgorodians, with their own proposals or demands. And often controversial issues were resolved on the bridge between the “Sofiyskaya” and “Torgovaya” sides of Volkhov: who would throw whom off the bridge. Local issues were resolved by the veche of urban posad-ends. At such meetings, possible claims against the city's executive authorities were usually discussed.

The very circle and composition of “vecheniki” at different times and among different tribes are not the same, just as the “leaders” within the veche meetings are not the same, which can be seen in the practice of different lands of Russia. The inevitable "external influences" are affecting, caused, in particular, by the conditions of settlement of the Slavs in the 6th-9th centuries, as well as by the process of deepening social delimitation of both consanguineous and territorial collectives at the same time.

The institution of the "tysyatskys" is clear from the very designation of the position. This is a traditional Slavic office, elected from “Earth”, within the framework of “tenths,” “fifty,” “sotsky,” and those following them. “Tysyatskie” are those who were assigned to lead the militia of the city and the districts. Naturally, the "thousand" tried to retain their rights, to preserve positions for posterity or in the immediate environment. But they had no formal rights to this, and therefore a struggle of potential candidates could unfold around this position.

The most significant in the historical perspective in Novgorod was the position of "posadniks" (the institute of "posadniks" is the subject of a thorough monograph by V.L. Yanin). The most confusing question remains about the origin of this institution and the functions of the mayors in the 10th – 11th centuries. Even the etymology, seemingly transparent, makes it possible to interpret in two ways: the mayor, as a “planted”, and the mayor, as the manager of the “posad”, the trade and craft part of the cities. The main problem associated with the institution of posadnichestvo is the process of transforming a princely "imprisoned" official into an elective republican office. In the "Tale of Bygone Years" the first Novgorod "posadniks" are mentioned in connection with the activities of the Kiev prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavich. At the same time, the fact that we are talking not about one posadnik is important, but the posadniks in the plural. They are also mentioned in the plural after Vladimir Svyatoslavich's return to Novgorod from the "overseas": the prince sends them to Kiev with parting words that soon he himself will go to Kiev against Yaropolk. Yaropolk's “posadniki” did not make it into the later lists, which usually open with the name of Gostomysl. The name Gostomysl, apparently, was popular in Novgorod legends, and was used to justify the right of Novgorodians to choose posadniks and invite princes of their choice. This name itself first appears in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, in which Gostomysl is presented as the predecessor of Rurik. Whether the name of Gostomysl was in the original Novgorod chronicle (according to BA Rybakov - in the Chronicle of Ostromir) remains unclear. In general, the very appearance of the name Gostomysl is associated with the revival of the memories of the Novgorodians about the former freemen and the desire for their revival in the 15th century. But the same situation developed in the XI century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. Accordingly, the message of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles that Gostomysl is an “elder” elected as a mayor is relevant not only for the 15th, but also for the 11th century.

In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, as well as in the lists of mayors, the second name after Gostomysl is Konstantin (Kosnyatin) Dobrynich, who was a cousin of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and, accordingly, a cousin of Yaroslav. In 1018, Constantine sharply opposed Yaroslav's attempt to escape, leaving everything to the Varangians. And this is also an indicator - the mayor expressed the mood and will of the Novgorodians. Yaroslav severely dealt with a close relative. In the annals, all these events are attributed to the end of the second and the beginning of the third decade of the 11th century. According to V.L. Ioannina, they should be transferred to the 30s, taking into account the duplication in the Sofia-Novgorod annals of all records during this time with a difference of about 16 years (this would correspond to the use of the Alexandrian space era, which determined the time from the "creation of the world" to the Nativity of Christ in 5492, that is, just 16 years earlier indicated in the Constantinople era).

Another Novgorod mayor in the 11th century is Ostromir, on whose order the famous “Ostromir Gospel” was made. In the story about the campaign against the Greeks in 1043, his son Vyshata is mentioned as the governor of Vladimir. Later, the same Vyshata in 1064 will leave Novgorod for Tmutarakan together with Prince Rostislav Vladimirovich. The date 1064 is in doubt. In the "Ostromir Gospel" its owner is defined as "close" to Izyaslav, that is, a relative of Izyaslav. And Izyaslav will lose the Kiev table, first in 1068, and then in 1073, when the Kiev table will be occupied by the main antagonist of Izyaslav - Svyatoslav Yaroslavich. The confrontation with Svyatoslav's family presupposes the events of 1068. Rostislav had to face Svyatoslav's son Gleb, who occupied Tmutarakan. Obviously, Ostromir was also associated with this branch of Yaroslav's descendants, who turned out to be outcasts. But the question of the relationship within the princely and posadnic branches of power in this case is not clear. In all likelihood, Rostislav fled, being unable to resist some candidate for the Novgorod table, nominated by Vseslav or Svyatoslav.

In the annals under the year 1054 - the date of the death of Yaroslav the Wise - it is said about the death of Ostromir in a campaign against a chud. But the "Ostromir Gospel" refers to 1057, therefore, the early Novgorod chronicles did not preserve the exact dating (this inaccuracy can serve as an argument in favor of the fact that the oldest Novgorod chronicle did not have dates "from the Creation of the world").

In the future, the institution of posadnichestvo was strengthened in Novgorod due to the fact that the Kiev princes sent here still incapacitated children, for whom and on whose behalf the governors and posadniks sent with them ruled. Rostislav was 14 years old when his father Vladimir died. Mstislav Vladimirovich was first sent to Novgorod at about 12 years of age (and stayed in his first arrival in Novgorod for 5 years, until 1093). The lists of posadniks during this time give a number of names that are not reflected in other sources. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich as a whole is a time of noticeable strengthening of the power of the Kiev prince, strengthening of a certain unity of different lands under his rule. Mstislav's second stay in Novgorod falls on 1096-1117, and the attempt by Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who reigned in Kiev after the death of Vsevolod and until his death in 1113, to use the right of the first person, was rejected by the Novgorodians, who preferred Mstislav. But the transition of Mstislav to Kiev in 1117 broke the harmony. Mstislav left his son Vsevolod in Novgorod with the promise that he would not leave Novgorod in any case. However, immediately after the death of Mstislav in 1132, the new Kiev prince Yaropolk transferred Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl, from where he was soon expelled by uncles Yuri and Andrey. Vsevolod was forced to return back to Novgorod, but there he was reminded of "treason", and in 1136 he was expelled in disgrace. Apparently, Vsevolod had previously held only by the authority and power of his father who occupied Kiev, and the conflict of 1132 only revealed the real relationship between the prince and “Earth”, which was rising, restoring in a number of cases ancient forms of self-government. The Novgorod chronicler notes that in the exile of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1132, both the Pskovites and the Ladozhians took part, and in general, “you will be great in people”. True, then the Novgorodians and their “suburbs” “went back to their feet”. But the year 1136 finally marked a new form of relations between the entire Novgorod land with the invited princes (Ladoga and Pskov also participated in this decision).

1136 is a date significant both for Novgorod and for Russia as a whole. It was from this time that both the principle of “eldership” and the principle of “fatherhood” actually ceased to operate. In the literature, it was noted that over the next century, more than 30 coups will be committed in Novgorod. And unrest arose not only because of the struggle at the top, among the mayors and the "golden belts". Social problems also constantly surfaced on the surface of public life, and some of the invited princes were already accused by the boyars of the preferences given to smerds. In general, the archaization of social relations in the Novgorod land turned out to be one of the reasons for the development of bourgeois relations in the north of Russia, while in the center and in the southern limits feudalism will introduce serf relations.

In the second half of the XII - the beginning of the XIII centuries, the Novgorodians will maneuver between the rival branches of the Yaroslavichs. So, having expelled Vsevolod Mstislavich (Monomakhovich), they immediately invited Svyatoslav Olgovich - one of the main rivals of the Monomakhovichs. Naturally, such a turn did not suit many in Novgorod and Pskov. In the turmoil of 1136-1138, the Pskovites will accept Vsevolod Mstislavich, and the Novgorodians will stick to Svyatoslav Olgovich, although he did not receive much support in Novgorod either. The conflict arose between the prince and Bishop Niphont, as noted above, on an everyday basis. And it is not surprising that Svyatoslav Olgovich soon left Novgorod.

In Novgorod, traditionally, the church authority has always played an important role. At the same time, in the second half of the 12th century, ecclesiastical and political contradictions appeared, and not only in connection with the conflict between Bishop Nifont and Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich. It was in 1136 that the monk of the Anthony Monastery, Kirik, wrote his famous "Teaching" - a meditation on chronology with access to both mathematics and astronomy. In conclusion of his text, he spoke very positively about Svyatoslav Olgovich, putting him ahead of Nifont. Later, Kirik would write “Questioning” to Nifont on a wide range of issues. Among these questions there is one very principled one: the replacement of penances (church punishments of the Byzantine type) with custom liturgies. Perhaps this question is related to the peculiar traditions of the Anthony Monastery itself, close to the Irish Church. Let us remind you that the founder of the monastery, Anthony the Roman, sailed to Novgorod from the West of Europe “on a rock”; floating “on a rock” was a specific feature of the Celtic saints. In addition, it was in the Irish church that penance was replaced by ordered liturgies. Consequently, Kirik's question to Niphont was related to the actual practice preserved in the Anthony monastery. And Nifont answered such questions harshly and harshly.

The events of Novgorod in 1156 were a kind of continuation of this theme. Niphon died in Kiev without waiting for the metropolitan. And the chronicler, defending Nifont, gives different opinions about him: “It was more byasht to Kyev against the Metropolitan; And in some of the many verbs, as if, after beating Saint Sophia, he went to Tsesaryugrad ”. No less interesting is the unique case that took place in Novgorod after the death of Niphont: “In the same summer, all the city of people gathered together, desiring themselves to be a bishop to make their husband a saint, and by God the name of Arkady was chosen; and all the people walked, belting out the holy Mother of God from the monastery ”. Bishop Arkady was appointed temporarily, as it were, until he was approved by the Metropolitan, and Arkady went to Kiev for approval only two years later. It seems that in this situation a relapse of the Irish or Arian tradition, characteristic of early Russian Christianity, is again manifested - the election of bishops by the decision of the community. Moreover, in the Irish Church, the bishop was an administrative and economic position, and among the Arians - his own service position. In the real political practice of Novgorod, the bishops combined both of these functions, often pushing aside both the princely power and the posadnik administration.

Vladyka Arkady headed the diocese until 1163. Then there was a two-year break in the annals, when the bishop’s place, apparently, became rusticated. And in the article of 1165, two archbishops are mentioned at once, appointed for Novgorod in Kiev: Ilya and Dionisy. The chronicler writes about the latter with obvious sympathy. Apparently, the editing of the article was unsuccessful: first, it was said about the statement of Ilya, and at the end of the article about the death of Dionysius.

Ilya held the department for twenty-one years (until 1187) and he managed to strengthen both his personal authority and the authority of the Sofia department. Chronicle positively assessed and the activities of his brother Gabriel in 1187-1193. - mainly the construction of churches, which may indicate either the actual position of the church, or the personality of the chronicler close to these archpastors.

Perhaps it was thanks to such a long de facto rule of Ilya and his brother that the internal position of Novgorod in the last third of the 12th century was relatively stabilized. In addition to the indicated element of stabilization - increasing the authority of the Sofia cathedra - external circumstances also contributed to this: the need to resist the growing threat in the Baltic from the German crusaders, and difficult relations with the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest.

Novgorod was vitally interested in maintaining normal business relations with the “great” princes who controlled the Volga-Baltic route and the lands that saved Novgorodians in often repeated years of poor harvest. But the grand dukes strove to subjugate Novgorod, and the Novgorod "freemen" sought "parity" relations. Therefore, wishing to limit the limits of the princely power, the Novgorodians reduced the number of lands from which the prince could receive tribute. This will be directly recorded in the letters of the XIII century, but as a tendency this situation existed from the very beginning. Simply in the XIII century the feudal nature of socio-economic relations was more clearly expressed, and the treaties more specifically defined the territories from which the princes could collect "tribute".

In the XII-XIII centuries. the strengthening of the social elite of Novgorod, which gave rise to another problem: the growing dissatisfaction of the social lower classes with the abuses of the city government. In 1209, when the Novgorodians took part in the campaign of Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest and reached the Oka, a social explosion took place in the city, directed “at the mayor Dmitry and his brothers”. Veche accused the rulers of Novgorod of numerous abuses: "You will command the Nanovgorod shop to imate silver, and by the volost, take chickens, a wild one by a merchant, and carry carts, and all other evil." By the decision of the veche, “going to their courtyards by robbery,” the villages of the mayor and his entourage were sold, the servants were taken away, each Novgorod citizen got three hryvnias from the looted property. The chronicler makes a reservation that it is not to count the fact that someone “grabbed”, and “from that I got rich”.

There is considerable literature about this uprising. And there is a fundamental discrepancy in the assessments of this social explosion: whether it was anti-feudal or intra-feudal in nature. It seems that, as in many other cases, the material testifies to intrafeudal collisions - as a result of the uprising, the loot was redistributed. But at the same time, there remains a way out to the root problem - in the events of 1209, the opposition between “Earth” and “Power” is clearly traced.

Novgorod was the main diplomatic and trade window of Russia to Northern Europe, and a significant number of acts have survived that agreed on relations with Western partners. The largest number of contracts is associated with Lubeck, the Gotha coast and German cities. In this regard, the incident with the "Varangians", which is reported by the Novgorod Chronicle under 1188, is of interest. The Novgorodians were robbed by the Varangians “at G'tekh”, and by the Germans “at Koryuzhka and Novotorzhets”. In response, Novgorod closed the exit to the sea and expelled the Varangian ambassador. Under 1201, this plot has a continuation: again the Varangians “empty without peace across the sea”, and in the same autumn “the Varangians came by mountain (that is, by land, through the Eastern Baltic) to the world, and gave them peace in all their will”.

These two messages are interesting in that one of the traditional agreements of Novgorod with Lubeck, the Gotha coast and German cities, that is, the southern coast of the Baltic, which at that time belonged to Germany, dates back to this time. The treaties usually dealt with peace, ambassadorial and trade relations, and court, since judicial traditions in different states and cities differed. Lubeck remained one of the main trade centers in the Baltic, and it was located in the documents of the XIV century “in Russia”. The "Gotha Coast" was a transit point for merchants along the Volga-Baltic route, and there were trading bases of almost all peoples involved in trade along the way. As for the cities "Horuzhek" and "Novotorzhets", their Slavic etymology is quite clear, but the question of their localization remains controversial.

A whole complex of problems characterizing Novgorod society is represented by the events of 1227–1230, marked by the annals (first of all, Novgorod First and Nikon's) with several fragmentary and contradictory phrases. In the literature, there are different readings and different assessments of what happened. And the problems are difficult to understand outside the context of the entire Novgorod and Old Russian history.

Judging by individual chronicle phrases, in 1227 - 1230 years in Novgorod were hungry years and "crop failure" affected for three years (in 1230 more than three thousand Novgorodians filled "student girls" with corpses, and the dogs could not eat the corpses scattered along the streets) ... The years of famine gave rise to many problems. First of all - where and at whose expense to deliver the missing products to the city. And immediately there were contradictions, about the nature of which and arguing history: class, or non-class. In 1227, the beginning of the “hungry years” was marked by the appearance of the seemingly forgotten Magi. The ancient wise men directly linked the phenomena of nature with the nature of power: “crop failure” was considered a sign of inept and incapacitated power, which could be subjected to any punishment.

As a result, the preachers-Magi were punished: for the first time in the history of Russia (in contrast to Western Europe) bonfires were lit; four Magi were burned at the stake. The chronicler, perhaps even contemporary to events, condemned this action, noting that, surrounded by Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (who occupied Pereyaslal Zalessky at that time and correcting the functions of the Novgorod prince), they reacted negatively to the punitive action of the Novgorodians. Since the burning took place in the Sofia courtyard, it can be assumed that the initiators of the execution were precisely in the office of the archbishop. As a result, Archbishop Anthony was forced to leave “of his own free will,” and the wrath of the Novgorodians fell on his successor Arseny.

The secular government also changed. Prince Yaroslav left the Novgorod table and returned to Pereyaslavl, while in Novgorod there appeared Prince Mikhail of Chernigov, who “kiss the cross in all the will of Novgorod” and previous letters, and “see freedom, we will not pay for 5 years in Denmark, who fled to someone else’s land”. In other words, those who fled either from violence or from hunger were exempted from tribute for five years. Those who remained in their places paid tribute in the same amounts.

1228 was also marked by another manifestation of Novgorod democracy. Archbishop Arseny, who replaced Anthony, was not accepted by the “simple child”. Moreover, an accusation was brought against him at the veche “at the princes’s court” that he had eliminated Anthony by “giving the prince a bribe”. Arseny was also accused of staying warm for too long. He was expelled, almost torn to pieces in the square in front of the St. Sophia Cathedral, and he was saved from death only by shutting himself up in the church. Anthony was again returned to the pulpit, and the courts of the secular rulers of the city were plundered. With the arrival of Mikhail of Chernigov in the city, another precedent was created: the candidate for the archbishop was chosen by lot from three candidates, rejecting those previously elected and approved. As a result, Spiridon, the deacon of the Yuryev monastery, turned out to be the elected archbishop.

The terrible famine of 1230 caused a new surge of protests and indignations in the social lower classes of Novgorod. The courtyards and villages of the mayor, tysyatsky and their entourage were plundered. A new mayor and a tysyatskiy were elected, and the property of those killed and expelled is divided “by a hundred” (that is, by “hundreds”). The “centennial” system, traditional for the Slavs, will persist for a long time in the north of Russia. And it remained a form of self-government, including in the organization of not always understandable “riots”.

On July 14, 1471, 545 years ago, the famous Shelon battle between Moscow and Novgorod took place. What happened that day and why we know so little about the battle, the science department of Gazeta.Ru tells.

The history of the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod occupies a special place in the history of our country. These two principalities vied with each other for the right to possess political, economic and religious supremacy in Russia for centuries. Moscow defended the right to control all the principalities, while Novgorod tried to preserve its unique republican spirit. During the 14th – 15th centuries, the Moscow princes made several attempts to annex the Novgorod principality, but none of them were crowned with success. But the next confrontation that began in the late spring of 1471 brought Moscow the long-awaited success, although it had to pay dearly for it.

By the middle of the 15th century, during the reign of Ivan III, Novgorod was in crisis.
In the city there were constant uprisings of the townspeople against the nobility due to the oppression of the lower and middle strata of the urban population.
The local Novgorod boyars, in whose hands the power was concentrated, could not put an end to the uprisings on their own. For this, it was decided to conclude an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king, who sent his governor, Prince Mikhail Olelkovich, to govern the troubled city. Another important step towards pacifying the uprising and establishing the power of the principality was the selection of a new Novgorod archbishop after the death of Jonah, who held this post earlier. According to tradition, the candidacy was to be submitted for agreement with Moscow, but this time Novgorod decided to reckon with the Lithuanian Orthodox Metropolitan, who was in Kiev. At the same time, Novgorod foresaw the future aggression of the Moscow prince Ivan III and concluded an allied treaty with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV.

"Traitor to Orthodoxy"
Two betrayals at once angered the masses of Novgorod, and this caused a split among the boyars, which led to a weakening of the military power of the city.
Ivan III perfectly understood that a good moment had come to finally annex the Novgorod principality, but decided to act in a cunning, diplomatic way - through the church.
The Moscow metropolitan accused the Novgorodians of treason and demanded that the population of the city refuse to support the Polish-Lithuanian guardianship. This threat mobilized both sides at once, and in the spring of 1471 Ivan III decided to organize an all-Russian "crusade" against Novgorod, which was perceived by the rest of the principalities as "treason to Orthodoxy." The religious color of the campaign gave it even greater significance and importance.

Starting in March 1471, Ivan III began to prepare for the campaign. Due to the special climatic conditions of the area around Novgorod, it was necessary to choose the correct strategy, and most importantly, the time of the offensive.
For this, a church service council was convened, at which it was decided to organize a campaign at the beginning of the summer.
In addition, it was important for Ivan III to enlist the support of the allied principalities and troops. At the cathedral, they decided to involve the Vyatka, Ustyuzhan, Pskov, and Tver prince in the campaign. Western, southern and eastern were chosen as the strategic direction of the attack, in order to surround Novgorod, cut it off from all retreat routes that led to Lithuania. A clearer plan of action was also developed, according to which two strong detachments were to approach Novgorod from the west and east, and from the south, the main attack was inflicted under the command of Ivan III himself. It should be noted that the fact of the convocation of a church service council was a new phenomenon in the political practice of medieval Russia. It was not just the eldest of the Russian princes who went on the campaign, but the head of the entire Russian land. This once again underlines the peculiarity and significance of the upcoming campaign.

Travel diary
We don't know much about this trip. The main sources are three chronicles, in which information about the military campaign of 1471 is fragmentary and in some places does not coincide. The basis is the Moscow Grand Duke Chronicle, which contains the prince's travel diary.
It is assumed that Ivan III led him during the campaign, writing down various details, dates and impressions there.
But when the diary was included in the chronicle, its content was subject to significant adjustments and abbreviations, which makes it difficult to read today. In addition, we have some evidence set out in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles, which contain references to the campaign of 1471, but in some places they differ significantly from the official Moscow version.

Ivan III needed to prepare an army for the offensive. At the head of the 10-thousandth detachment were princes Daniil Kholmsky, Fedor Davidovich Pestry-Starodubsky, as well as Prince Obolensky-Striga.
All were experienced warlords, had participated in military campaigns earlier and posed a serious threat to the Novgorod militia.
But a more significant part of the Moscow army was made up of allies who joined them: the Tver, Pskov and Dmitrov troops. For a long time the Tver principality was a rival of Moscow, but the fact of the alliance in the campaign against Novgorod testifies to the recognition of Moscow's leading role by Tver. From the side of Tver were princes Yuri and Ivan Nikitich Zhito, who provided Moscow with an impressive army.

Another major ally of Moscow was Pskov. His political position has been special for a long time. Recognizing the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow over himself, Pskov retained a significant share of independence in his foreign policy actions, he himself disposed of his militia and was reluctantly drawn into the war with Novgorod. Moreover, for a long time there was an alliance between Pskov and Novgorod, but after the events of 1460, when Pskov sided with Moscow during the battles on the Livonian frontier, the situation changed. Thus, the campaign of 1471 is notable for the scale of the allied forces involved in it, which were formerly enemies of Moscow.

Novgorod militia
Novgorod was also actively preparing for battle. The boyars gathered all combat-ready townspeople and forced them to go to war. The number of the Novgorod army was many times higher than the Moscow one and reached 40 thousand, but its combat effectiveness was much lower due to the unpopularity of the war among the Novgorod population.
Novgorod's strategy was to disunite the Moscow army and destroy it piece by piece.

The main striking force of Novgorod was the cavalry, which the boyars sent to the Pskov road in order to prevent the detachment of Prince Kholmsky from connecting with the Pskov formation. Also, the Novgorod infantry was supposed to land on the southern bank near the village of Korostyna and defeat the detachment of Prince Kholmsky. The third direction of the Novgorod plan was Zavolochye, where the detachment of Prince Vasily Shuisky operated, which, however, was cut off from the main military forces. It is obvious that, despite the existence of an offensive plan, the Novgorod troops were very scattered and poorly organized. According to the chronicle, after the invasion of the Grand Duke's troops on the Novgorod land, the Novgorod leadership made an attempt to enter into negotiations and sent an ambassador to the Grand Duke with a request for "danger." However, "at the same time" the Novgorodians "sent their army in the courts across the Ilmer lake of many people from Veliky Novgorod."

"... Telling them to go across the river Sholon to shoot from Pskovichi"
At the end of June 1471, Ivan III ordered the troops of Prince Danila Dmitrievich and Fyodor Davydovich to move towards Rusa, the most important strategic point on the way to Novgorod.
With a noticeable speed, which is noted in the annals, in five days, Moscow troops burn and destroy the city.
Then, instead of continuing to move closer to Novgorod, the governors make a decision “from Rusa to go to D'man town”, located in a southeastern direction from Novgorod. In turn, Ivan III gives a directive in which he notes that “I told them to go across the river Sholona to get off the Pskovites. And under the Demon he ordered Prince Mikhail Andreevich to take a hundred with his son, Prince Vasily, and howl with all his ".

For all the importance of taking control of the Demon city, it made no sense for the future strategy of conducting a military campaign. And Ivan III understood this perfectly, in contrast to his governors. This episode, in particular the prince's directive of July 9, largely predetermined the further fate of the campaign and led to the battle on the Sheloni River. Ivan III clearly defined the main and the secondary in organizing the movement of his troops and the capture of cities. The withdrawal of troops from the Novgorod direction would weaken the threat hanging over the city and free the hands of the Novgorodians for further active actions. The mastery of the Demon was seen as a secondary task, for the solution of which the small forces of the Tver appanage prince were allocated. The main thing was to unite with the Pskov troops and give battle to the Novgorodians, the place for which was chosen on the left bank of the Sheloni River, between its mouth and the city of Soltsy.

"About the battle on Choloni"
Oddly enough, we know very little about the battle itself. We have fragmentary information from the Pskov chronicle, which, however, writes about the participation of the Pskovites in this battle, although it is known from the official Moscow chronicle that the Pskov troops never reached the site of the battle. The only full-fledged source from which you can learn some of the details of the battle is the Moscow Grand Ducal Chronicle.
The Novgorod army under the command of Dmitry Boretsky, Vasily Kazimir, Kuzma Grigoriev and Yakov Fedorov settled down for the night at the mouth of the Dryan River, a tributary of the Shelon River. On the morning of July 14, a firefight began across the river. The suddenness of the attack of the prepared and seasoned army of Prince Kholmsky caught the Novgorodians by surprise. Moscow troops continued to cross, to attack the fleeing Novgorodians, despite their numerical superiority. In general, this is all that we know about the battle: the unexpected rapid crossing of the Muscovites across the river, the courage of the troops, the abundant shelling of the Novgorodians with arrows, which knocked out their cavalry from the battle, and their further defeat.
In this battle, the Novgorodians lost about 12 thousand killed and 2 thousand prisoners.

However, today we know more about the disagreements that were present in the texts of the chronicles than about the battle itself. One of the striking discrepancies is the mention in the Novgorod chronicle of the Tatar detachment, which allegedly helped the Moscow army to defeat the Novgorodians. According to the official grand-ducal chronicle, there were no Tatars in the troops of Prince Kholmsky and Fyodor Davidovich - they marched in the second echelon with Prince Ivan Striga Obolensky. The Tatars could not participate in the battle on Sheloni. Other discrepancies mainly concern the details of the consequences of the battle, for example, the retreat of Muscovites across the river after the victory, which seems inconceivable. But all three texts of the chronicles agree in the complete defeat of the Novgorod troops by Moscow, which testifies to the most important strategic victory of the Moscow principality in the confrontation with Novgorod. It was not finally annexed, but after this campaign, following the signing of the Korostyn Peace Treaty on August 11, 1471, which ended this war, the status of Novgorod changed dramatically. The city became an integral part of the Russian land. This was the great merit of Ivan III and his military talent.

“Victims of Russian hard times - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants "
The place of the Shelon battle in the general historical memory is still not quite clearly defined. On July 7, 2001, with the blessing of the Archbishop of Novgorod and Old Russian Leo, in the church of the Apostle Evangelist John the Theologian in the village of Velebitsy, Soletsky district of the Novgorod region, after the liturgy, a procession of the cross took place, after which a six-meter oak cross was erected and illuminated, on which a memorial plaque was placed with the words:
“Victims of Russian hardships - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants. "
Eight years later, on December 8, 2009, a memorial sign was erected on the banks of the Shelon in the village of Skirino, at the supposed site of the battle between the detachments of Novgorodians and Muscovites. Few people remember the events that took place on July 14, 1471, but, as history has shown, their consequences greatly influenced not only the history of Novgorod, but also the Moscow principality, and the whole of Medieval Russia. The historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who was in these places, recalled: “Having traveled several miles, on a sandy shore, overgrown with bushes, we found a large, rather high hill, and when we began to dig earth on it with umbrellas, we saw that this entire hill consists of human bones. An almost dried-up river Dran flowed here, flowing into Shelon. I realized that this burial mound was the burial place of the Novgorodians, who were defeated on the banks of the Sheloni somewhat higher than this place and fled to the Drani River, where on another occasion the fleeing was inflicted with a final defeat. Taking two skulls as a souvenir, we drove on and arrived at the chapel, under which was the grave of the soldiers who fell in battle; a memorial service is performed over them every year. "

On July 14, 1471, 545 years ago, the famous Shelon battle between Moscow and Novgorod took place. What happened that day and why we know so little about the battle, the science department of Gazeta.Ru tells.

The history of the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod occupies a special place in the history of our country. These two principalities vied with each other for the right to possess political, economic and religious supremacy in Russia for centuries. Moscow defended the right to control all the principalities, while Novgorod tried to preserve its unique republican spirit. During the 14th – 15th centuries, the Moscow princes made several attempts to annex the Novgorod principality, but none of them were crowned with success. But the next confrontation that began in the late spring of 1471 brought Moscow the long-awaited success, although it had to pay dearly for it.

By the middle of the 15th century, during the reign of Ivan III, Novgorod was in crisis.
In the city there were constant uprisings of the townspeople against the nobility due to the oppression of the lower and middle strata of the urban population.
The local Novgorod boyars, in whose hands the power was concentrated, could not put an end to the uprisings on their own. For this, it was decided to conclude an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king, who sent his governor, Prince Mikhail Olelkovich, to govern the troubled city. Another important step towards pacifying the uprising and establishing the power of the principality was the selection of a new Novgorod archbishop after the death of Jonah, who held this post earlier. According to tradition, the candidacy was to be submitted for agreement with Moscow, but this time Novgorod decided to reckon with the Lithuanian Orthodox Metropolitan, who was in Kiev. At the same time, Novgorod foresaw the future aggression of the Moscow prince Ivan III and concluded an allied treaty with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV.

"Traitor to Orthodoxy"
Two betrayals at once angered the masses of Novgorod, and this caused a split among the boyars, which led to a weakening of the military power of the city.
Ivan III perfectly understood that a good moment had come to finally annex the Novgorod principality, but decided to act in a cunning, diplomatic way - through the church.
The Moscow metropolitan accused the Novgorodians of treason and demanded that the population of the city refuse to support the Polish-Lithuanian guardianship. This threat mobilized both sides at once, and in the spring of 1471 Ivan III decided to organize an all-Russian "crusade" against Novgorod, which was perceived by the rest of the principalities as "treason to Orthodoxy." The religious color of the campaign gave it even greater significance and importance.

Starting in March 1471, Ivan III began to prepare for the campaign. Due to the special climatic conditions of the area around Novgorod, it was necessary to choose the correct strategy, and most importantly, the time of the offensive.
For this, a church service council was convened, at which it was decided to organize a campaign at the beginning of the summer.
In addition, it was important for Ivan III to enlist the support of the allied principalities and troops. At the cathedral, they decided to involve the Vyatka, Ustyuzhan, Pskov, and Tver prince in the campaign. Western, southern and eastern were chosen as the strategic direction of the attack, in order to surround Novgorod, cut it off from all retreat routes that led to Lithuania. A clearer plan of action was also developed, according to which two strong detachments were to approach Novgorod from the west and east, and from the south, the main attack was inflicted under the command of Ivan III himself. It should be noted that the fact of the convocation of a church service council was a new phenomenon in the political practice of medieval Russia. It was not just the eldest of the Russian princes who went on the campaign, but the head of the entire Russian land. This once again underlines the peculiarity and significance of the upcoming campaign.

Travel diary
We don't know much about this trip. The main sources are three chronicles, in which information about the military campaign of 1471 is fragmentary and in some places does not coincide. The basis is the Moscow Grand Duke Chronicle, which contains the prince's travel diary.
It is assumed that Ivan III led him during the campaign, writing down various details, dates and impressions there.
But when the diary was included in the chronicle, its content was subject to significant adjustments and abbreviations, which makes it difficult to read today. In addition, we have some evidence set out in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles, which contain references to the campaign of 1471, but in some places they differ significantly from the official Moscow version.

Ivan III needed to prepare an army for the offensive. At the head of the 10-thousandth detachment were princes Daniil Kholmsky, Fedor Davidovich Pestry-Starodubsky, as well as Prince Obolensky-Striga.
All were experienced warlords, had participated in military campaigns earlier and posed a serious threat to the Novgorod militia.
But a more significant part of the Moscow army was made up of allies who joined them: the Tver, Pskov and Dmitrov troops. For a long time the Tver principality was a rival of Moscow, but the fact of the alliance in the campaign against Novgorod testifies to the recognition of Moscow's leading role by Tver. From the side of Tver were princes Yuri and Ivan Nikitich Zhito, who provided Moscow with an impressive army.

Another major ally of Moscow was Pskov. His political position has been special for a long time. Recognizing the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow over himself, Pskov retained a significant share of independence in his foreign policy actions, he himself disposed of his militia and was reluctantly drawn into the war with Novgorod. Moreover, for a long time there was an alliance between Pskov and Novgorod, but after the events of 1460, when Pskov sided with Moscow during the battles on the Livonian frontier, the situation changed. Thus, the campaign of 1471 is notable for the scale of the allied forces involved in it, which were formerly enemies of Moscow.

Novgorod militia
Novgorod was also actively preparing for battle. The boyars gathered all combat-ready townspeople and forced them to go to war. The number of the Novgorod army was many times higher than the Moscow one and reached 40 thousand, but its combat effectiveness was much lower due to the unpopularity of the war among the Novgorod population.
Novgorod's strategy was to disunite the Moscow army and destroy it piece by piece.

The main striking force of Novgorod was the cavalry, which the boyars sent to the Pskov road in order to prevent the detachment of Prince Kholmsky from connecting with the Pskov formation. Also, the Novgorod infantry was supposed to land on the southern bank near the village of Korostyna and defeat the detachment of Prince Kholmsky. The third direction of the Novgorod plan was Zavolochye, where the detachment of Prince Vasily Shuisky operated, which, however, was cut off from the main military forces. It is obvious that, despite the existence of an offensive plan, the Novgorod troops were very scattered and poorly organized. According to the chronicle, after the invasion of the Grand Duke's troops on the Novgorod land, the Novgorod leadership made an attempt to enter into negotiations and sent an ambassador to the Grand Duke with a request for "danger." However, "at the same time" the Novgorodians "sent their army in the courts across the Ilmer lake of many people from Veliky Novgorod."

"... Telling them to go across the river Sholon to shoot from Pskovichi"
At the end of June 1471, Ivan III ordered the troops of Prince Danila Dmitrievich and Fyodor Davydovich to move towards Rusa, the most important strategic point on the way to Novgorod.
With a noticeable speed, which is noted in the annals, in five days, Moscow troops burn and destroy the city.
Then, instead of continuing to move closer to Novgorod, the governors make a decision “from Rusa to go to D'man town”, located in a southeastern direction from Novgorod. In turn, Ivan III gives a directive in which he notes that “I told them to go across the river Sholona to get off the Pskovites. And under the Demon he ordered Prince Mikhail Andreevich to take a hundred with his son, Prince Vasily, and howl with all his ".

For all the importance of taking control of the Demon city, it made no sense for the future strategy of conducting a military campaign. And Ivan III understood this perfectly, in contrast to his governors. This episode, in particular the prince's directive of July 9, largely predetermined the further fate of the campaign and led to the battle on the Sheloni River. Ivan III clearly defined the main and the secondary in organizing the movement of his troops and the capture of cities. The withdrawal of troops from the Novgorod direction would weaken the threat hanging over the city and free the hands of the Novgorodians for further active actions. The mastery of the Demon was seen as a secondary task, for the solution of which the small forces of the Tver appanage prince were allocated. The main thing was to unite with the Pskov troops and give battle to the Novgorodians, the place for which was chosen on the left bank of the Sheloni River, between its mouth and the city of Soltsy.

"About the battle on Choloni"
Oddly enough, we know very little about the battle itself. We have fragmentary information from the Pskov chronicle, which, however, writes about the participation of the Pskovites in this battle, although it is known from the official Moscow chronicle that the Pskov troops never reached the site of the battle. The only full-fledged source from which you can learn some of the details of the battle is the Moscow Grand Ducal Chronicle.
The Novgorod army under the command of Dmitry Boretsky, Vasily Kazimir, Kuzma Grigoriev and Yakov Fedorov settled down for the night at the mouth of the Dryan River, a tributary of the Shelon River. On the morning of July 14, a firefight began across the river. The suddenness of the attack of the prepared and seasoned army of Prince Kholmsky caught the Novgorodians by surprise. Moscow troops continued to cross, to attack the fleeing Novgorodians, despite their numerical superiority. In general, this is all that we know about the battle: the unexpected rapid crossing of the Muscovites across the river, the courage of the troops, the abundant shelling of the Novgorodians with arrows, which knocked out their cavalry from the battle, and their further defeat.
In this battle, the Novgorodians lost about 12 thousand killed and 2 thousand prisoners.

However, today we know more about the disagreements that were present in the texts of the chronicles than about the battle itself. One of the striking discrepancies is the mention in the Novgorod chronicle of the Tatar detachment, which allegedly helped the Moscow army to defeat the Novgorodians. According to the official grand-ducal chronicle, there were no Tatars in the troops of Prince Kholmsky and Fyodor Davidovich - they marched in the second echelon with Prince Ivan Striga Obolensky. The Tatars could not participate in the battle on Sheloni. Other discrepancies mainly concern the details of the consequences of the battle, for example, the retreat of Muscovites across the river after the victory, which seems inconceivable. But all three texts of the chronicles agree in the complete defeat of the Novgorod troops by Moscow, which testifies to the most important strategic victory of the Moscow principality in the confrontation with Novgorod. It was not finally annexed, but after this campaign, following the signing of the Korostyn Peace Treaty on August 11, 1471, which ended this war, the status of Novgorod changed dramatically. The city became an integral part of the Russian land. This was the great merit of Ivan III and his military talent.

“Victims of Russian hard times - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants "
The place of the Shelon battle in the general historical memory is still not quite clearly defined. On July 7, 2001, with the blessing of the Archbishop of Novgorod and Old Russian Leo, in the church of the Apostle Evangelist John the Theologian in the village of Velebitsy, Soletsky district of the Novgorod region, after the liturgy, a procession of the cross took place, after which a six-meter oak cross was erected and illuminated, on which a memorial plaque was placed with the words:
“Victims of Russian hardships - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants. "
Eight years later, on December 8, 2009, a memorial sign was erected on the banks of the Shelon in the village of Skirino, at the supposed site of the battle between the detachments of Novgorodians and Muscovites. Few people remember the events that took place on July 14, 1471, but, as history has shown, their consequences greatly influenced not only the history of Novgorod, but also the Moscow principality, and the whole of Medieval Russia. The historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who was in these places, recalled: “Having traveled several miles, on a sandy shore, overgrown with bushes, we found a large, rather high hill, and when we began to dig earth on it with umbrellas, we saw that this entire hill consists of human bones. An almost dried-up river Dran flowed here, flowing into Shelon. I realized that this burial mound was the burial place of the Novgorodians, who were defeated on the banks of the Sheloni somewhat higher than this place and fled to the Drani River, where on another occasion the fleeing was inflicted with a final defeat. Taking two skulls as a souvenir, we drove on and arrived at the chapel, under which was the grave of the soldiers who fell in battle; a memorial service is performed over them every year. "

A source

In an abandoned industrial area, "Americans and Russians" fought over chemical weapons

In one of the former republics of the USSR, on the territory of the officially mothballed, but continuing to operate within the framework of a secret intergovernmental agreement, a plant for the production of chemical weapons, an accident occurred with an explosion and release of a military substance. Upon learning of this, the United States prepared a "mop-up" group in order to get the samples of chemical weapons of interest. Russia also pulled units of radiation, chemical and biological protection to the scene to blockade the area and completely eliminate the facility. And the confrontation began ...

Just a game

No, don't think that something terrible has happened. This is just the legend of the open airsoft championship, which took place in Parfin on September 22-24.

Airsoft is a military tactical game that initially involved training soldiers in combat. Later, the training session turned into a game, the meaning of which is to complete as many tasks as possible and die as few times as possible.

There are a number of rules for the players, but beyond safety requirements, court culture and script, what is important is ... honesty. Indeed, how to understand whether a soldier was killed or not? Indeed, in airsoft, unlike paintball, they shoot with plastic balls, and they do not leave marks on clothes ... It's simple - the player who was shot must honestly raise his hand and leave the battlefield. As the participants themselves say, only honest people come to play airsoft - there is no place for others.

Together with a group of airsoft players, we ride in the back of a KamAZ truck to the site of the official start of the game. Along the perimeter, the military protects the territory from lost mushroom pickers and onlookers. Although the balls are plastic, they hurt, no one needs injuries ... Looking at the stripes on the players' camouflage, you understand that the geography of the participants is not limited to the Novgorod region. There are representatives from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tver, Pskov ... For the first test game, as the organizers say, not bad.

At the launch site, the military from Luga acquaint spectators with samples of weapons. " Very heavy, you can't lift it, you can't go far with that", - the boys from the Parthino school are discussing. Soldiers representing military equipment smile: after all, they have to make many kilometers of marches with these weapons.

Start given

Tatiana Chernikova, the organizer of the game and managing partner of the Agency for Ready-Made Solutions, said before the start of the competition that all the necessary safety measures were observed on the site: it meets high quality standards. Tatyana Chernikova thanked the guests for their participation, as well as the Government of the Novgorod Region for the opportunity to hold a large-scale tournament.

In turn, the Deputy Governor of the Novgorod Region Veronika Minina, opening the game, noted that such a championship is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky region to attract guests from all over the country.

After a short official part, the players dispersed to prepare for the game, and we returned to the camp in the back of our familiar KamAZ. We are going fun. Seasoned airsoft players share the stories of their gaming life. Someone tells how he begged his wife for a fifth camouflage, someone about a new machine gun. " My wife told me to say that I am not henpecked", - ending the story of buying a new outfit, says a tall unshaven war lover.

There is a field kitchen in the camp, food for the players is organized, you can immediately buy Dixer tactical shoes from the general sponsor of the event Zenden Group, try to shoot from airsoft weapons. While all these little things are nice, some avid gamers don't need them. " We came not to sleep, we came to play"They say.

Not by force, but by skill

The final battle of the second day clearly showed that a war, albeit a game one, requires not only physical strength, but also tactics. For example, numerous players of one of the teams, having taken, at first glance, an advantageous position, lost in tactics, were surrounded by the opposing team and shot.

The result of the game was not only a good mood of the participants, a sea of ​​positive emotions and photos on social networks. According to the organizers, a film will be released about this championship - about war, airsoft and patriotism.

The training game was successful, - Tatiana Chernikova summed up the results. - Experienced airsoft players noted that this project is more interesting and potentially more powerful than the existing ones. The organization of the tournament and household amenities were also at their best. Everything was foreseen in Parfin.

Already now we can safely say that the game "Confrontation: Novgorod Land" has given rise to a new direction - military-patriotic tourism. Indeed, according to the organizers, this is not the last event in the Novgorod region. It is planned that tactical competitions at the Parthian site will be held annually.

Recall that large-scale competitions were organized by the "Agency of ready-made solutions" and the "Territory of active games" Polygon "with the support of the Government of the Novgorod region and brought together more than 2000 people from 12 regions of Russia in the Parfinsky region.

Tatiana YAKOVENKO, Anastasia GAVRILOVA

Photo by Tatiana Yakovenko

”Already talked about yesterday about the airsoft tournament“ Opposition: Novgorod land ”.

Recall that the Russian open air strike championship was held from September 22 to 24 in Parfin, in an abandoned industrial area. The championship was organized by the "Agency of ready-made solutions" and "Territory of active games" Polygon "with the support of the Government of the Novgorod region.

Guests from 12 regions of Russia came to Parfino, and this is just the beginning, the regional government promises. It is planned that tactical competitions at the Parthian site will be held annually. This was announced by Vice Governor Veronika Minina at the opening of the tournament.

According to her, this tournament is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky region to attract guests from all over the country.

Tatiana Chernikova, the organizer of the game and managing partner of the Agency for Ready-Made Solutions, said before the start of the competition that all the necessary safety measures were observed on the site and it meets high quality standards. She thanked the regional government for the opportunity to host a large-scale tournament.

The combat atmosphere on the site was created by specialists from the regional department of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. Rescuers and medics were on duty at the site throughout the game. And near the playing area, the regional DOSAAF displayed military equipment so that spectators could inspect weapons and special vehicles.

“Players took part in an exciting battle for victory in atmospheric locations, complemented by real military equipment. The original game scenario, developed by a team of professional airsoft players, turned out to be a pleasant surprise for the athletes. Two teams had to seize strategic enemy targets, find the place where the dangerous virus was stored, and also carry out secret tasks to neutralize it, ”the press center of the regional government told us.

Photo: Alexey Malchuk (regional government website)

Editorial staff

Latest news of the Novgorod region on the topic:
Parthian airsoft "Confrontation" may become an annual

Parthian airsoft "Confrontation" may become an annual - Velikiy Novgorod

A. G. Kuzmin

The specifics of the development of the Novgorod land in the XI-XIII centuries. was largely associated with the previous time, because it was in antiquity that peculiar features of the Novgorod socio-political structure, and the landmarks of the city economy, and the principles of the relationship of Novgorod with other lands of Russia were laid.

In the historical literature, the main discussions were associated with the beginning of Novgorod. The chronicle dates its origin to about 864: Rurik came from Ladoga and founded Novgorod (legends about the more ancient existence of the city were formed not earlier than the 17th century). Among archaeologists, there are discrepancies in the assessment of this ancient testimony of the chronicle. The well-known connoisseur of Novgorod antiquities V.L. Yanin attributes the emergence of Novgorod only to the 10th century. G.P. Smirnova argued that the oldest Novgorod ceramics, similar to West Slavic ones, was deposited in the oldest layers of Novgorod just at the time indicated in the chronicle - in the second half of the 9th century. But the differences in chronology are not so fundamentally significant - different materials are taken into account, from different excavations, different dating methods are used (for example, accurate dating by modern methods of street pavements indicates only the time of the appearance of these pavements, and not the settlement itself). It is more important to evaluate the content of the chronicle message: to what extent is this source reliable.

There are also discrepancies in the definition of the ethnic composition of the original settlement of Novgorod. But this is also natural: along the Volga-Baltic route, multilingual detachments and simply settlers walked from west to east. In the legend about the vocation of the Varangians, dated in the annals of the 50-60s. IX century, there are two Slavic tribes and three Finno-Ugric tribes as an already formed federation and, therefore, arose earlier than this time. And here there are also ethnically indefinite “Varangians” who clearly came here from the events described earlier, even if a measure far from the Baltic had to pay tribute to them.

The different opinions of researchers are also predetermined by the fact that the early Novgorod chronicles preserved less material than the later ones - the Sofia-Novgorod ones. This is especially noticeable when describing the events of the 11th century, which the Novgorod First Chronicle conveys, following mainly one of the editions of the Tale of Bygone Years (until 1115). It was this circumstance that gave rise to the widespread opinion that there was no independent chronicle writing in Novgorod until the 12th century. In principle, the discrepancies in the definition of the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle are one of the many consequences of a different understanding of the very essence of the chronicle: a single tree or the coexistence and struggle of different traditions expressing the interests of different political forces and ideological aspirations.

Judging by the preface to the Novgorod First Chronicle, this set arose between 1204 - 1261. According to a number of signs, it is determined that the code was compiled in the middle of the 13th century, and later it was brought up to the 30s. XIV century. It was until the middle of the XIII century that the Novgorod source was used by the compiler of the Rostov collection. The code used the edition of the "Tale of Bygone Years" in chronological limits up to 1115 (but without contracts), which served as the basis for this branch of the Novgorod chronicle, but it was neither the only one, nor the oldest.

In this sense, it is important to refer to the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the 15th century. In general, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles are more material for the annalistic corpus than the corpus itself. The chronicler leaves notes, perhaps for himself, like: “look in Kiev”, without revealing the content of the corresponding text of the “Tale of Bygone Years”. It is due to the incompleteness of work on the text in the annals that the same events are often duplicated under different years. But in this disordered material, traces of an earlier Novgorod chronicle are visible, including those completely unreported in the Novgorod First Chronicle. For example, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the century provide material about the time of Yaroslav's reign (the first half of the 11th century), whom The Tale of Bygone Years does not know. And this material is clearly of Novgorod origin.

A certain stage of work within the framework of this tradition was the compilation, compiled in the 80s of the XII century, presumably by Herman Voyataya, who died in 1188. At the same time, it is important that in the Synodal (oldest) list of the Novgorod First Chronicle, this chronicler designates himself under the year 1144: “Set me up to help Archbishop Saint Niphon”. It is very likely that it was in this set that the Rostov chronicle was also involved, namely, “Old Rostov Chronicler”. His influence is noticeable in the stories about Moses Ugrin, the sister of Yaroslav Predslav, Mstislav “Lutom” and some others. Moreover, in this case, we are talking about the collection, that is, the creation of a historical work characteristic of feudal Russia and Russia, combining different written sources. In such vaults, previously compiled vaults usually continued, often without rework. Therefore, most likely, during the 12th century, there was clearly more than one center for keeping chronicle records in Novgorod.

Those of the researchers who recognized the existence of the Novgorod chronicle in the 11th century (A.A. Shakhmatov, B.A. Rybakov, a number of authors of the 19th century) usually looked for traces of it in the 50s. For Shakhmatov, this is Novgorod material, which was first used in Kiev in the “Primary Code of 1095” he proposed, and he looked for traces of it in the “Tale of Bygone Years”. B.A. Rybakov talks about the "Ostromir Chronicle", to a greater extent using the material of the Sofia-Novgorod Chronicles, that is, with the inevitable exit to a different tradition than that reflected in the "Tale of Bygone Years." This dating is confirmed by an important indication of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles under the year 1030. In them, in comparison with the "Tale of Bygone Years", it is added that in 1030 Yaroslav, after the creation of the city of Yuryev, returned to Novgorod and collected "300 teach books from the elders and priest's children." And then follows an exceptionally important “reminder”: “Archbishop Akim of Novgorod, and byasha his disciple Ephraim, who teach us, have reposed”. Ephraim apparently headed the Novgorod diocese, like Anastas and later Hilarion the Kiev church. The first (or one of the first) Novgorod chronicler defines himself as a disciple of Ephraim, and this leads precisely to the middle of the 11th century, since Ephraim is already mentioned in the past tense, because Ephraim served as head of the Novgorod church until the approval of the Byzantine metropolis in Kiev in 1037.

At the heart of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is a collection of 1418, which has not come down to us directly. But the compilers of the younger edition of the Novgorod First Chronicle were apparently familiar with him. Chronological confusion is noted in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, which may indicate the absence of absolute dates in the original text: the dates were put down either by the chronicler of the middle of the 11th century, or by later chroniclers.

In the XII-XIII centuries. The Novgorod land steadily adhered to the communal-republican forms of hostel that persisted for many centuries and were not completely suppressed by the ideology and practice of serfdom. It has already been said that in terms of the specifics of its socio-political structure, Novgorod is close to the cities of the Slavic Baltic Pomorie (South Baltic). This specificity was the originality of the Novgorod land within the framework of the East Slavic state and ethnic unification: the initial weakness of the princely power; great authority of religious authority (both in paganism and in Christianity); involvement in socio-political processes of different strata of the population (in addition to slaves).

From the borders of the Novgorod land, this system of socio-political relations spread far to the east, up to Siberia, as shown, in particular, by D.K. Zelenin: It is characteristic that such a system is especially widespread in those territories where agriculture exists, but it is unstable, and therefore crafts and trade play an important role. Another point is also important - there has never been and will never be serfdom in these territories, since feudal estates do not make sense here: a smerd forcibly tied to a place will not give anything to its potential owner. But "tribute" and "dues" will remain in these regions for centuries. The absence of serfdom was also influenced by the fact that in the countryside, which was in harsh and unstable climatic conditions, the initiative of each worker and the observance of the principle of "artel" were required. This, in turn, caused the need to preserve the communal social structure, which was dominated by the principle of elective leaders, when persons in elected positions exercised internal management of the community and the representation of the community outside of it.

To understand the uniqueness of the socio-political structure of the Novgorod land, it is necessary to take into account the fact that there was a hierarchy of cities in the Novgorod land - all cities were considered “suburbs” of Novgorod and had to bear certain duties in relation to it. But inside each of these cities, the administration was built from the bottom up, as well as in Novgorod itself. Of course, with the deepening of social contradictions, between the “top” and “bottom” of urban society, confrontations often arose, and even open struggle. But the "smerd", as the main category of the population, was a significant figure at the beginning of the 11th century, and in the 12th century, and later, when the princes, in opposition to the boyars, supported the "smerds".

The Novgorod land had its own specificity of interaction between Slavic and non-Slavic tribes. The fact is that non-Slavic tribes in most cases kept their isolation for quite a long time, and their inner life remained traditional. A tribute was paid to Novgorod as a whole or to individual Novgorod secular and church feudal lords, these tribes and the collection of such "tribute" was the main form of subordination of non-Slavic tribes to the main city of the region or its "suburbs". Among the tributary tribes of Novgorod were Izhora, Vod (off the coast of the Gulf of Finland), Karela, Terskoy coast in the south of the Kola Peninsula, Em (Finns), Pechera, Yugra. Moreover, in the east, in the Urals (the land of the Pechora and Ugra), there were no graveyards to collect tribute, and special squads were sent there. Collecting "tribute" usually took place peacefully, with mutual consent, although, of course, there were also cases when Novgorod warriors were engaged in robberies. But on the whole, the situation in Novgorod's relations with the eastern and northern tribes is reflected in the Karelian-Finnish epic: there is no concept of an external enemy in it, and hostile forces are hiding in the dungeons or in heaven.

Novgorod also claimed to collect tribute from the tribes of the Eastern Baltic. But from the end of the XII century, German crusaders began to penetrate into this region, with whom Novgorod would later conduct a constant and difficult struggle. The center of Novgorod's influence on the Eastern Baltic tribes was the city of Yuryev, founded in 1030 by Yaroslav the Wise. The struggle for Yuryev will for a long time be the most important link in the opposition to the "onslaught to the east" of the crusaders. The tribes located on the territory of the Novgorod land proper, as a rule, acted in alliance with the Novgorodians against the onslaught of the Germans and Scandinavians from the west.

The main elements of Novgorod self-government proper are the veche, the institute of posadniks, the institute of tysyatsky, the institute of elders and the economic and managerial positions associated with these institutes. Initially, the Magi played an important independent role in paganism, and after the adoption of Christianity - bishops and archbishops. The role of these various institutions is revealed in connection with some kind of conflicts: either between the prince and the city, or within the dominant “golden belts” - applicants for higher positions, or between the “upper classes” and social “lower classes” of the city.

The usual impression of Novgorod self-government as an uncontrollable freeman is formed under the influence of the sum of the chronicle news. But the chronicles do not report on the daily, "routine" affairs of the chronicle, reflecting on their pages only some important events. But even the information that has been preserved is evidence of the high political activity of the Novgorod population, which is possible only under conditions of certain legal protection.

The cardinal institution in the system of self-government was the veche, which was a kind of continuation of the obligatory “popular assemblies” in any tribal associations (territorial and consanguineous). The very fact of the veche's existence is often questioned, and underneath it is supposed to be some kind of narrow meeting of the "top", which passes off its decision as a "nationwide" one. There must have been such speculations, but they say that once matters were decided at a general meeting.

In the XII-XIII centuries it was the “veche” and its decisions that corrected the behavior of the executive branch. People's assemblies actually recorded in the annals are most often presented as something extraordinary, caused by unexpected problems. At some stage, they apparently became such. But the need to refer to the opinion of the veche, even when solving obviously dubious issues, is an argument in favor of the people's assembly: it cannot be forced, and therefore must be deceived. Of course, real deeds were often done behind the backs of the “eternals”. But if Novgorod had to really resist someone or something, then it was impossible to do without a "veche". Consequently, the very "extraordinary" nature of the people's assemblies is a kind of evidence of the "highest" criterion of power, as the obligation to resolve urgent issues facing the entire tribal or territorial organization. And in some cases it was the decision of the "veche" that blocked - right or wrong - the boyars' intentions.

In the practice of Novgorod political life, the opinion and decision of the “veche” had to be addressed more than once, and the chronicles report in a number of cases about the opposition of the “veche” between the aristocratic “Sofia” and the handicraft-merchant “Trade” side, that is, about meetings of different either territorially or socially united Novgorodians, with their own proposals or demands. And often controversial issues were resolved on the bridge between the “Sofiyskaya” and “Torgovaya” sides of Volkhov: who would throw whom off the bridge. Local issues were resolved by the veche of urban posad-ends. At such meetings, possible claims against the city's executive authorities were usually discussed.

The very circle and composition of “vecheniki” at different times and among different tribes are not the same, just as the “leaders” within the veche meetings are not the same, which can be seen in the practice of different lands of Russia. The inevitable "external influences" are affecting, caused, in particular, by the conditions of settlement of the Slavs in the 6th-9th centuries, as well as by the process of deepening social delimitation of both consanguineous and territorial collectives at the same time.

The institution of the "tysyatskys" is clear from the very designation of the position. This is a traditional Slavic office, elected from “Earth”, within the framework of “tenths,” “fifty,” “sotsky,” and those following them. “Tysyatskie” are those who were assigned to lead the militia of the city and the districts. Naturally, the "thousand" tried to retain their rights, to preserve positions for posterity or in the immediate environment. But they had no formal rights to this, and therefore a struggle of potential candidates could unfold around this position.

The most significant in the historical perspective in Novgorod was the position of "posadniks" (the institute of "posadniks" is the subject of a thorough monograph by V.L. Yanin). The most confusing question remains about the origin of this institution and the functions of the mayors in the 10th – 11th centuries. Even the etymology, seemingly transparent, makes it possible to interpret in two ways: the mayor, as a “planted”, and the mayor, as the manager of the “posad”, the trade and craft part of the cities. The main problem associated with the institution of posadnichestvo is the process of transforming a princely "imprisoned" official into an elective republican office. In the "Tale of Bygone Years" the first Novgorod "posadniks" are mentioned in connection with the activities of the Kiev prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavich. At the same time, the fact that we are talking not about one posadnik is important, but the posadniks in the plural. They are also mentioned in the plural after Vladimir Svyatoslavich's return to Novgorod from the "overseas": the prince sends them to Kiev with parting words that soon he himself will go to Kiev against Yaropolk. Yaropolk's “posadniki” did not make it into the later lists, which usually open with the name of Gostomysl. The name Gostomysl, apparently, was popular in Novgorod legends, and was used to justify the right of Novgorodians to choose posadniks and invite princes of their choice. This name itself first appears in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, in which Gostomysl is presented as the predecessor of Rurik. Whether the name of Gostomysl was in the original Novgorod chronicle (according to BA Rybakov - in the Chronicle of Ostromir) remains unclear. In general, the very appearance of the name Gostomysl is associated with the revival of the memories of the Novgorodians about the former freemen and the desire for their revival in the 15th century. But the same situation developed in the XI century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. Accordingly, the message of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles that Gostomysl is an “elder” elected as a mayor is relevant not only for the 15th, but also for the 11th century.

In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, as well as in the lists of mayors, the second name after Gostomysl is Konstantin (Kosnyatin) Dobrynich, who was a cousin of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and, accordingly, a cousin of Yaroslav. In 1018, Constantine sharply opposed Yaroslav's attempt to escape, leaving everything to the Varangians. And this is also an indicator - the mayor expressed the mood and will of the Novgorodians. Yaroslav severely dealt with a close relative. In the annals, all these events are attributed to the end of the second and the beginning of the third decade of the 11th century. According to V.L. Ioannina, they should be transferred to the 30s, taking into account the duplication in the Sofia-Novgorod annals of all records during this time with a difference of about 16 years (this would correspond to the use of the Alexandrian space era, which determined the time from the "creation of the world" to the Nativity of Christ in 5492, that is, just 16 years earlier indicated in the Constantinople era).

Another Novgorod mayor in the 11th century is Ostromir, on whose order the famous “Ostromir Gospel” was made. In the story about the campaign against the Greeks in 1043, his son Vyshata is mentioned as the governor of Vladimir. Later, the same Vyshata in 1064 will leave Novgorod for Tmutarakan together with Prince Rostislav Vladimirovich. The date 1064 is in doubt. In the "Ostromir Gospel" its owner is defined as "close" to Izyaslav, that is, a relative of Izyaslav. And Izyaslav will lose the Kiev table, first in 1068, and then in 1073, when the Kiev table will be occupied by the main antagonist of Izyaslav - Svyatoslav Yaroslavich. The confrontation with Svyatoslav's family presupposes the events of 1068. Rostislav had to face Svyatoslav's son Gleb, who occupied Tmutarakan. Obviously, Ostromir was also associated with this branch of Yaroslav's descendants, who turned out to be outcasts. But the question of the relationship within the princely and posadnic branches of power in this case is not clear. In all likelihood, Rostislav fled, being unable to resist some candidate for the Novgorod table, nominated by Vseslav or Svyatoslav.

In the annals under the year 1054 - the date of the death of Yaroslav the Wise - it is said about the death of Ostromir in a campaign against a chud. But the "Ostromir Gospel" refers to 1057, therefore, the early Novgorod chronicles did not preserve the exact dating (this inaccuracy can serve as an argument in favor of the fact that the oldest Novgorod chronicle did not have dates "from the Creation of the world").

In the future, the institution of posadnichestvo was strengthened in Novgorod due to the fact that the Kiev princes sent here still incapacitated children, for whom and on whose behalf the governors and posadniks sent with them ruled. Rostislav was 14 years old when his father Vladimir died. Mstislav Vladimirovich was first sent to Novgorod at about 12 years of age (and stayed in his first arrival in Novgorod for 5 years, until 1093). The lists of posadniks during this time give a number of names that are not reflected in other sources. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich as a whole is a time of noticeable strengthening of the power of the Kiev prince, strengthening of a certain unity of different lands under his rule. Mstislav's second stay in Novgorod falls on 1096-1117, and the attempt by Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who reigned in Kiev after the death of Vsevolod and until his death in 1113, to use the right of the first person, was rejected by the Novgorodians, who preferred Mstislav. But the transition of Mstislav to Kiev in 1117 broke the harmony. Mstislav left his son Vsevolod in Novgorod with the promise that he would not leave Novgorod in any case. However, immediately after the death of Mstislav in 1132, the new Kiev prince Yaropolk transferred Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl, from where he was soon expelled by uncles Yuri and Andrey. Vsevolod was forced to return back to Novgorod, but there he was reminded of "treason", and in 1136 he was expelled in disgrace. Apparently, Vsevolod had previously held only by the authority and power of his father who occupied Kiev, and the conflict of 1132 only revealed the real relationship between the prince and “Earth”, which was rising, restoring in a number of cases ancient forms of self-government. The Novgorod chronicler notes that in the exile of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1132, both the Pskovites and the Ladozhians took part, and in general, “you will be great in people”. True, then the Novgorodians and their “suburbs” “went back to their feet”. But the year 1136 finally marked a new form of relations between the entire Novgorod land with the invited princes (Ladoga and Pskov also participated in this decision).

1136 is a date significant both for Novgorod and for Russia as a whole. It was from this time that both the principle of “eldership” and the principle of “fatherhood” actually ceased to operate. In the literature, it was noted that over the next century, more than 30 coups will be committed in Novgorod. And unrest arose not only because of the struggle at the top, among the mayors and the "golden belts". Social problems also constantly surfaced on the surface of public life, and some of the invited princes were already accused by the boyars of the preferences given to smerds. In general, the archaization of social relations in the Novgorod land turned out to be one of the reasons for the development of bourgeois relations in the north of Russia, while in the center and in the southern limits feudalism will introduce serf relations.

In the second half of the XII - the beginning of the XIII centuries, the Novgorodians will maneuver between the rival branches of the Yaroslavichs. So, having expelled Vsevolod Mstislavich (Monomakhovich), they immediately invited Svyatoslav Olgovich - one of the main rivals of the Monomakhovichs. Naturally, such a turn did not suit many in Novgorod and Pskov. In the turmoil of 1136-1138, the Pskovites will accept Vsevolod Mstislavich, and the Novgorodians will stick to Svyatoslav Olgovich, although he did not receive much support in Novgorod either. The conflict arose between the prince and Bishop Niphont, as noted above, on an everyday basis. And it is not surprising that Svyatoslav Olgovich soon left Novgorod.

In Novgorod, traditionally, the church authority has always played an important role. At the same time, in the second half of the 12th century, ecclesiastical and political contradictions appeared, and not only in connection with the conflict between Bishop Nifont and Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich. It was in 1136 that the monk of the Anthony Monastery, Kirik, wrote his famous "Teaching" - a meditation on chronology with access to both mathematics and astronomy. In conclusion of his text, he spoke very positively about Svyatoslav Olgovich, putting him ahead of Nifont. Later, Kirik would write “Questioning” to Nifont on a wide range of issues. Among these questions there is one very principled one: the replacement of penances (church punishments of the Byzantine type) with custom liturgies. Perhaps this question is related to the peculiar traditions of the Anthony Monastery itself, close to the Irish Church. Let us remind you that the founder of the monastery, Anthony the Roman, sailed to Novgorod from the West of Europe “on a rock”; floating “on a rock” was a specific feature of the Celtic saints. In addition, it was in the Irish church that penance was replaced by ordered liturgies. Consequently, Kirik's question to Niphont was related to the actual practice preserved in the Anthony monastery. And Nifont answered such questions harshly and harshly.

The events of Novgorod in 1156 were a kind of continuation of this theme. Niphon died in Kiev without waiting for the metropolitan. And the chronicler, defending Nifont, gives different opinions about him: “It was more byasht to Kyev against the Metropolitan; And in some of the many verbs, as if, after beating Saint Sophia, he went to Tsesaryugrad ”. No less interesting is the unique case that took place in Novgorod after the death of Niphont: “In the same summer, all the city of people gathered together, desiring themselves to be a bishop to make their husband a saint, and by God the name of Arkady was chosen; and all the people walked, belting out the holy Mother of God from the monastery ”. Bishop Arkady was appointed temporarily, as it were, until he was approved by the Metropolitan, and Arkady went to Kiev for approval only two years later. It seems that in this situation a relapse of the Irish or Arian tradition, characteristic of early Russian Christianity, is again manifested - the election of bishops by the decision of the community. Moreover, in the Irish Church, the bishop was an administrative and economic position, and among the Arians - his own service position. In the real political practice of Novgorod, the bishops combined both of these functions, often pushing aside both the princely power and the posadnik administration.

Vladyka Arkady headed the diocese until 1163. Then there was a two-year break in the annals, when the bishop’s place, apparently, became rusticated. And in the article of 1165, two archbishops are mentioned at once, appointed for Novgorod in Kiev: Ilya and Dionisy. The chronicler writes about the latter with obvious sympathy. Apparently, the editing of the article was unsuccessful: first, it was said about the statement of Ilya, and at the end of the article about the death of Dionysius.

Ilya held the department for twenty-one years (until 1187) and he managed to strengthen both his personal authority and the authority of the Sofia department. Chronicle positively assessed and the activities of his brother Gabriel in 1187-1193. - mainly the construction of churches, which may indicate either the actual position of the church, or the personality of the chronicler close to these archpastors.

Perhaps it was thanks to such a long de facto rule of Ilya and his brother that the internal position of Novgorod in the last third of the 12th century was relatively stabilized. In addition to the indicated element of stabilization - increasing the authority of the Sofia cathedra - external circumstances also contributed to this: the need to resist the growing threat in the Baltic from the German crusaders, and difficult relations with the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest.

Novgorod was vitally interested in maintaining normal business relations with the “great” princes who controlled the Volga-Baltic route and the lands that saved Novgorodians in often repeated years of poor harvest. But the grand dukes strove to subjugate Novgorod, and the Novgorod "freemen" sought "parity" relations. Therefore, wishing to limit the limits of the princely power, the Novgorodians reduced the number of lands from which the prince could receive tribute. This will be directly recorded in the letters of the XIII century, but as a tendency this situation existed from the very beginning. Simply in the XIII century the feudal nature of socio-economic relations was more clearly expressed, and the treaties more specifically defined the territories from which the princes could collect "tribute".

In the XII-XIII centuries. the strengthening of the social elite of Novgorod, which gave rise to another problem: the growing dissatisfaction of the social lower classes with the abuses of the city government. In 1209, when the Novgorodians took part in the campaign of Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest and reached the Oka, a social explosion took place in the city, directed “at the mayor Dmitry and his brothers”. Veche accused the rulers of Novgorod of numerous abuses: "You will command the Nanovgorod shop to imate silver, and by the volost, take chickens, a wild one by a merchant, and carry carts, and all other evil." By the decision of the veche, “going to their courtyards by robbery,” the villages of the mayor and his entourage were sold, the servants were taken away, each Novgorod citizen got three hryvnias from the looted property. The chronicler makes a reservation that it is not to count the fact that someone “grabbed”, and “from that I got rich”.

There is considerable literature about this uprising. And there is a fundamental discrepancy in the assessments of this social explosion: whether it was anti-feudal or intra-feudal in nature. It seems that, as in many other cases, the material testifies to intrafeudal collisions - as a result of the uprising, the loot was redistributed. But at the same time, there remains a way out to the root problem - in the events of 1209, the opposition between “Earth” and “Power” is clearly traced.

Novgorod was the main diplomatic and trade window of Russia to Northern Europe, and a significant number of acts have survived that agreed on relations with Western partners. The largest number of contracts is associated with Lubeck, the Gotha coast and German cities. In this regard, the incident with the "Varangians", which is reported by the Novgorod Chronicle under 1188, is of interest. The Novgorodians were robbed by the Varangians “at G'tekh”, and by the Germans “at Koryuzhka and Novotorzhets”. In response, Novgorod closed the exit to the sea and expelled the Varangian ambassador. Under 1201, this plot has a continuation: again the Varangians “empty without peace across the sea”, and in the same autumn “the Varangians came by mountain (that is, by land, through the Eastern Baltic) to the world, and gave them peace in all their will”.

These two messages are interesting in that one of the traditional agreements of Novgorod with Lubeck, the Gotha coast and German cities, that is, the southern coast of the Baltic, which at that time belonged to Germany, dates back to this time. The treaties usually dealt with peace, ambassadorial and trade relations, and court, since judicial traditions in different states and cities differed. Lubeck remained one of the main trade centers in the Baltic, and it was located in the documents of the XIV century “in Russia”. The "Gotha Coast" was a transit point for merchants along the Volga-Baltic route, and there were trading bases of almost all peoples involved in trade along the way. As for the cities "Horuzhek" and "Novotorzhets", their Slavic etymology is quite clear, but the question of their localization remains controversial.

A whole complex of problems characterizing Novgorod society is represented by the events of 1227–1230, marked by the annals (first of all, Novgorod First and Nikon's) with several fragmentary and contradictory phrases. In the literature, there are different readings and different assessments of what happened. And the problems are difficult to understand outside the context of the entire Novgorod and Old Russian history.

Judging by individual chronicle phrases, in 1227 - 1230 years in Novgorod were hungry years and "crop failure" affected for three years (in 1230 more than three thousand Novgorodians filled "student girls" with corpses, and the dogs could not eat the corpses scattered along the streets) ... The years of famine gave rise to many problems. First of all - where and at whose expense to deliver the missing products to the city. And immediately there were contradictions, about the nature of which and arguing history: class, or non-class. In 1227, the beginning of the “hungry years” was marked by the appearance of the seemingly forgotten Magi. The ancient wise men directly linked the phenomena of nature with the nature of power: “crop failure” was considered a sign of inept and incapacitated power, which could be subjected to any punishment.

As a result, the preachers-Magi were punished: for the first time in the history of Russia (in contrast to Western Europe) bonfires were lit; four Magi were burned at the stake. The chronicler, perhaps even contemporary to events, condemned this action, noting that, surrounded by Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (who occupied Pereyaslal Zalessky at that time and correcting the functions of the Novgorod prince), they reacted negatively to the punitive action of the Novgorodians. Since the burning took place in the Sofia courtyard, it can be assumed that the initiators of the execution were precisely in the office of the archbishop. As a result, Archbishop Anthony was forced to leave “of his own free will,” and the wrath of the Novgorodians fell on his successor Arseny.

The secular government also changed. Prince Yaroslav left the Novgorod table and returned to Pereyaslavl, while in Novgorod there appeared Prince Mikhail of Chernigov, who “kiss the cross in all the will of Novgorod” and previous letters, and “see freedom, we will not pay for 5 years in Denmark, who fled to someone else’s land”. In other words, those who fled either from violence or from hunger were exempted from tribute for five years. Those who remained in their places paid tribute in the same amounts.

1228 was also marked by another manifestation of Novgorod democracy. Archbishop Arseny, who replaced Anthony, was not accepted by the “simple child”. Moreover, an accusation was brought against him at the veche “at the princes’s court” that he had eliminated Anthony by “giving the prince a bribe”. Arseny was also accused of staying warm for too long. He was expelled, almost torn to pieces in the square in front of the St. Sophia Cathedral, and he was saved from death only by shutting himself up in the church. Anthony was again returned to the pulpit, and the courts of the secular rulers of the city were plundered. With the arrival of Mikhail of Chernigov in the city, another precedent was created: the candidate for the archbishop was chosen by lot from three candidates, rejecting those previously elected and approved. As a result, Spiridon, the deacon of the Yuryev monastery, turned out to be the elected archbishop.

The terrible famine of 1230 caused a new surge of protests and indignations in the social lower classes of Novgorod. The courtyards and villages of the mayor, tysyatsky and their entourage were plundered. A new mayor and a tysyatskiy were elected, and the property of those killed and expelled is divided “by a hundred” (that is, by “hundreds”). The “centennial” system, traditional for the Slavs, will persist for a long time in the north of Russia. And it remained a form of self-government, including in the organization of not always understandable “riots”.

On July 14, 1471, 545 years ago, the famous Shelon battle between Moscow and Novgorod took place. What happened that day and why we know so little about the battle, the science department of Gazeta.Ru tells.

The history of the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod occupies a special place in the history of our country. These two principalities vied with each other for the right to possess political, economic and religious supremacy in Russia for centuries. Moscow defended the right to control all the principalities, while Novgorod tried to preserve its unique republican spirit. During the 14th – 15th centuries, the Moscow princes made several attempts to annex the Novgorod principality, but none of them were crowned with success. But the next confrontation that began in the late spring of 1471 brought Moscow the long-awaited success, although it had to pay dearly for it.

By the middle of the 15th century, during the reign of Ivan III, Novgorod was in crisis.
In the city there were constant uprisings of the townspeople against the nobility due to the oppression of the lower and middle strata of the urban population.
The local Novgorod boyars, in whose hands the power was concentrated, could not put an end to the uprisings on their own. For this, it was decided to conclude an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king, who sent his governor, Prince Mikhail Olelkovich, to govern the troubled city. Another important step towards pacifying the uprising and establishing the power of the principality was the selection of a new Novgorod archbishop after the death of Jonah, who held this post earlier. According to tradition, the candidacy was to be submitted for agreement with Moscow, but this time Novgorod decided to reckon with the Lithuanian Orthodox Metropolitan, who was in Kiev. At the same time, Novgorod foresaw the future aggression of the Moscow prince Ivan III and concluded an allied treaty with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV.

"Traitor to Orthodoxy"
Two betrayals at once angered the masses of Novgorod, and this caused a split among the boyars, which led to a weakening of the military power of the city.
Ivan III perfectly understood that a good moment had come to finally annex the Novgorod principality, but decided to act in a cunning, diplomatic way - through the church.
The Moscow metropolitan accused the Novgorodians of treason and demanded that the population of the city refuse to support the Polish-Lithuanian guardianship. This threat mobilized both sides at once, and in the spring of 1471 Ivan III decided to organize an all-Russian "crusade" against Novgorod, which was perceived by the rest of the principalities as "treason to Orthodoxy." The religious color of the campaign gave it even greater significance and importance.

Starting in March 1471, Ivan III began to prepare for the campaign. Due to the special climatic conditions of the area around Novgorod, it was necessary to choose the correct strategy, and most importantly, the time of the offensive.
For this, a church service council was convened, at which it was decided to organize a campaign at the beginning of the summer.
In addition, it was important for Ivan III to enlist the support of the allied principalities and troops. At the cathedral, they decided to involve the Vyatka, Ustyuzhan, Pskov, and Tver prince in the campaign. Western, southern and eastern were chosen as the strategic direction of the attack, in order to surround Novgorod, cut it off from all retreat routes that led to Lithuania. A clearer plan of action was also developed, according to which two strong detachments were to approach Novgorod from the west and east, and from the south, the main attack was inflicted under the command of Ivan III himself. It should be noted that the fact of the convocation of a church service council was a new phenomenon in the political practice of medieval Russia. It was not just the eldest of the Russian princes who went on the campaign, but the head of the entire Russian land. This once again underlines the peculiarity and significance of the upcoming campaign.

Travel diary
We don't know much about this trip. The main sources are three chronicles, in which information about the military campaign of 1471 is fragmentary and in some places does not coincide. The basis is the Moscow Grand Duke Chronicle, which contains the prince's travel diary.
It is assumed that Ivan III led him during the campaign, writing down various details, dates and impressions there.
But when the diary was included in the chronicle, its content was subject to significant adjustments and abbreviations, which makes it difficult to read today. In addition, we have some evidence set out in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles, which contain references to the campaign of 1471, but in some places they differ significantly from the official Moscow version.

Ivan III needed to prepare an army for the offensive. At the head of the 10-thousandth detachment were princes Daniil Kholmsky, Fedor Davidovich Pestry-Starodubsky, as well as Prince Obolensky-Striga.
All were experienced warlords, had participated in military campaigns earlier and posed a serious threat to the Novgorod militia.
But a more significant part of the Moscow army was made up of allies who joined them: the Tver, Pskov and Dmitrov troops. For a long time the Tver principality was a rival of Moscow, but the fact of the alliance in the campaign against Novgorod testifies to the recognition of Moscow's leading role by Tver. From the side of Tver were princes Yuri and Ivan Nikitich Zhito, who provided Moscow with an impressive army.

Another major ally of Moscow was Pskov. His political position has been special for a long time. Recognizing the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow over himself, Pskov retained a significant share of independence in his foreign policy actions, he himself disposed of his militia and was reluctantly drawn into the war with Novgorod. Moreover, for a long time there was an alliance between Pskov and Novgorod, but after the events of 1460, when Pskov sided with Moscow during the battles on the Livonian frontier, the situation changed. Thus, the campaign of 1471 is notable for the scale of the allied forces involved in it, which were formerly enemies of Moscow.

Novgorod militia
Novgorod was also actively preparing for battle. The boyars gathered all combat-ready townspeople and forced them to go to war. The number of the Novgorod army was many times higher than the Moscow one and reached 40 thousand, but its combat effectiveness was much lower due to the unpopularity of the war among the Novgorod population.
Novgorod's strategy was to disunite the Moscow army and destroy it piece by piece.

The main striking force of Novgorod was the cavalry, which the boyars sent to the Pskov road in order to prevent the detachment of Prince Kholmsky from connecting with the Pskov formation. Also, the Novgorod infantry was supposed to land on the southern bank near the village of Korostyna and defeat the detachment of Prince Kholmsky. The third direction of the Novgorod plan was Zavolochye, where the detachment of Prince Vasily Shuisky operated, which, however, was cut off from the main military forces. It is obvious that, despite the existence of an offensive plan, the Novgorod troops were very scattered and poorly organized. According to the chronicle, after the invasion of the Grand Duke's troops on the Novgorod land, the Novgorod leadership made an attempt to enter into negotiations and sent an ambassador to the Grand Duke with a request for "danger." However, "at the same time" the Novgorodians "sent their army in the courts across the Ilmer lake of many people from Veliky Novgorod."

"... Telling them to go across the river Sholon to shoot from Pskovichi"
At the end of June 1471, Ivan III ordered the troops of Prince Danila Dmitrievich and Fyodor Davydovich to move towards Rusa, the most important strategic point on the way to Novgorod.
With a noticeable speed, which is noted in the annals, in five days, Moscow troops burn and destroy the city.
Then, instead of continuing to move closer to Novgorod, the governors make a decision “from Rusa to go to D'man town”, located in a southeastern direction from Novgorod. In turn, Ivan III gives a directive in which he notes that “I told them to go across the river Sholona to get off the Pskovites. And under the Demon he ordered Prince Mikhail Andreevich to take a hundred with his son, Prince Vasily, and howl with all his ".

For all the importance of taking control of the Demon city, it made no sense for the future strategy of conducting a military campaign. And Ivan III understood this perfectly, in contrast to his governors. This episode, in particular the prince's directive of July 9, largely predetermined the further fate of the campaign and led to the battle on the Sheloni River. Ivan III clearly defined the main and the secondary in organizing the movement of his troops and the capture of cities. The withdrawal of troops from the Novgorod direction would weaken the threat hanging over the city and free the hands of the Novgorodians for further active actions. The mastery of the Demon was seen as a secondary task, for the solution of which the small forces of the Tver appanage prince were allocated. The main thing was to unite with the Pskov troops and give battle to the Novgorodians, the place for which was chosen on the left bank of the Sheloni River, between its mouth and the city of Soltsy.

"About the battle on Choloni"
Oddly enough, we know very little about the battle itself. We have fragmentary information from the Pskov chronicle, which, however, writes about the participation of the Pskovites in this battle, although it is known from the official Moscow chronicle that the Pskov troops never reached the site of the battle. The only full-fledged source from which you can learn some of the details of the battle is the Moscow Grand Ducal Chronicle.
The Novgorod army under the command of Dmitry Boretsky, Vasily Kazimir, Kuzma Grigoriev and Yakov Fedorov settled down for the night at the mouth of the Dryan River, a tributary of the Shelon River. On the morning of July 14, a firefight began across the river. The suddenness of the attack of the prepared and seasoned army of Prince Kholmsky caught the Novgorodians by surprise. Moscow troops continued to cross, to attack the fleeing Novgorodians, despite their numerical superiority. In general, this is all that we know about the battle: the unexpected rapid crossing of the Muscovites across the river, the courage of the troops, the abundant shelling of the Novgorodians with arrows, which knocked out their cavalry from the battle, and their further defeat.
In this battle, the Novgorodians lost about 12 thousand killed and 2 thousand prisoners.

However, today we know more about the disagreements that were present in the texts of the chronicles than about the battle itself. One of the striking discrepancies is the mention in the Novgorod chronicle of the Tatar detachment, which allegedly helped the Moscow army to defeat the Novgorodians. According to the official grand-ducal chronicle, there were no Tatars in the troops of Prince Kholmsky and Fyodor Davidovich - they marched in the second echelon with Prince Ivan Striga Obolensky. The Tatars could not participate in the battle on Sheloni. Other discrepancies mainly concern the details of the consequences of the battle, for example, the retreat of Muscovites across the river after the victory, which seems inconceivable. But all three texts of the chronicles agree in the complete defeat of the Novgorod troops by Moscow, which testifies to the most important strategic victory of the Moscow principality in the confrontation with Novgorod. It was not finally annexed, but after this campaign, following the signing of the Korostyn Peace Treaty on August 11, 1471, which ended this war, the status of Novgorod changed dramatically. The city became an integral part of the Russian land. This was the great merit of Ivan III and his military talent.

“Victims of Russian hard times - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants "
The place of the Shelon battle in the general historical memory is still not quite clearly defined. On July 7, 2001, with the blessing of the Archbishop of Novgorod and Old Russian Leo, in the church of the Apostle Evangelist John the Theologian in the village of Velebitsy, Soletsky district of the Novgorod region, after the liturgy, a procession of the cross took place, after which a six-meter oak cross was erected and illuminated, on which a memorial plaque was placed with the words:
“Victims of Russian hardships - eternal memory. The creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of the descendants. "
Eight years later, on December 8, 2009, a memorial sign was erected on the banks of the Shelon in the village of Skirino, at the supposed site of the battle between the detachments of Novgorodians and Muscovites. Few people remember the events that took place on July 14, 1471, but, as history has shown, their consequences greatly influenced not only the history of Novgorod, but also the Moscow principality, and the whole of Medieval Russia. The historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who was in these places, recalled: “Having traveled several miles, on a sandy shore, overgrown with bushes, we found a large, rather high hill, and when we began to dig earth on it with umbrellas, we saw that this entire hill consists of human bones. An almost dried-up river Dran flowed here, flowing into Shelon. I realized that this burial mound was the burial place of the Novgorodians, who were defeated on the banks of the Sheloni somewhat higher than this place and fled to the Drani River, where on another occasion the fleeing was inflicted with a final defeat. Taking two skulls as a souvenir, we drove on and arrived at the chapel, under which was the grave of the soldiers who fell in battle; a memorial service is performed over them every year. "

A source

Vasily the Dark died in 1462. With the accession to the throne of Ivan III, a terrible danger loomed over Novgorod. It was not for nothing that Ivan III was nicknamed the Terrible for the first time in Russian history, and only later was he given the "fierce grandson" of Ivan IV.

The only salvation of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod could be the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Since the XII century, the Novgorodians defended their independence, balancing between the Vladimir-Suzdal princes. Now all Vladimir-Suzdal Russia belonged to the fierce Ivan.

Let's look at the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod not through the eyes of the historians of the 19th – 20th centuries, but through the eyes of the Novgorodians of the 15th century. They could not foresee the Union of Brest, the Polonization of Lithuanian Rus, the wild tyranny of the Polish magnates in the 17th – 18th centuries, etc. In their time, most of the Lithuanian princes and nobles professed Orthodoxy, there was still religious tolerance. Many cities in Lithuania received the Magdeburg Law, albeit not always in full. Finally, Novgorodians are accustomed to seeing serving Lithuanian princes on the Settlement. A rhetorical question, why should we, following the historians, call the part of the Novgorod population that gravitated towards Lithuania traitors?

Lithuanian supporters in Novgorod were led by the Boretskys boyars. The fall of 1470 can be considered the beginning of the decisive battle with Moscow.On November 5, Novgorod Vladyka Jonah died. Two days after his death, Mikhail Alexandrovich, brother of the Kiev prince Semyon, came to Novgorod from Lithuania. Mikhail arrived with the Kiev squad and received the status of a service prince. It is curious that the governor of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III was in Novgorod at the same time. Actually, this was nothing unusual for the Republic, we remember how often two princes were kept at the same time at the feeding. But here the situation was completely different. If Michael with some tension can be considered a condottieri, then Ivan III considered his governor to be equal to governors in Rostov, Mozhaisk and other cities captured by Moscow.

The Boretsky party, headed by Martha, the widow of the mayor Isak Boretsky, suffered a serious setback when choosing a new ruler. Martha wished to see Pimen as Archbishop, who was in charge of the Sofia (church) treasury under Jonah. But according to Novgorod custom, Vladyka was chosen by lot from three applicants. They were Pimen, Barsonius (confessor of the late Jonah) and Protodeacon Theophilus.

On November 15, 1470, a veche gathered at the Sofia (sovereign) court. The lot fell on Theophilus. Opponents of the Boretskys took the opportunity and demanded an audit of the sovereign's treasury. Veche agreed - the Russian people have always hated bribe-takers and embezzlers. I do not presume to judge whether Pimen stole church money, but a large shortage was discovered. They seized Pimen, beat him for a long time, ruined his yard and ordered to collect a thousand rubles from him.

The point, of course, was not a thousand rubles. The Boretskys and other boyars - opponents of Moscow - had large means, the problem was a sharp decline in the prestige of the Lithuanian party.

The archdeacon Theophilus, chosen by the bishop, was a gray spineless person. He was little worried about the fate of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod, and was only interested in his own well-being. He equally did not want either the complete subordination of Novgorod to Ivan III, or the victory of the Lithuanian side. Theophilus feared that in the latter case his influence would plummet, in which he was indeed right. And the fierce Ivan, meanwhile, was quieter than water, below the grass and sent to Novgorod benevolent letters, which served as a powerful weapon for the pro-Moscow party.

The parties met at the veche. The Lithuanian party won, and the veche accepted a "treaty letter" with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir. According to the agreement, the king undertook to keep his governor from among the Orthodox lords in Novgorod. The governor, butler and tiuns, living in the Settlement, were not supposed to have more than fifty people with them. If the Grand Duke of Moscow, or his son, or his brother went to war against Novgorod, the king, together with the Rada of Lithuania, had to go to the aid of the Novgorodians. If the king, without making peace between Novgorod and the Moscow prince, goes to the Polish or German land and Moscow goes to Novgorod without him, then the Lithuanian Council must go to defend Novgorod. The king pledged not to oppress the Orthodox faith, and wherever the Novgorodians want, they will establish a ruler there, and the king will not build Catholic churches either in Novgorod, or in the suburbs, or throughout the land of Novgorod.

If this agreement were implemented, nothing would have changed in the life of Novgorodians for many decades. Another question, would the turbid wave of Catholic expansion and Polonization in the late 16th - early 17th centuries have bypassed the free Novgorod?

The plans of the Lithuanian party were canceled out by an insignificant event that seemed to have nothing to do with Novgorod. Prince Semyon Alexandrovich died in Kiev. Having learned about the death of his brother, Prince Mikhail abandoned Novgorod on March 15, 1471 and, together with his retinue, set off for Lithuania. Of course, he did not go to lay flowers on the grave. Michael received information that Casimir decided to take Kiev from the Olelkovich dynasty and put his governor there. Leaving Novgorod, Mikhail's squad plundered something in the Novgorod volosts. It seems to be an everyday matter - in those days no one could do without it. But pro-Moscow elements raised a terrible uproar in Novgorod about this.

And so, in May 1471, Grand Duke Ivan III summoned his brothers, the metropolitan, bishops, boyars and governors to the Duma and announced that it was necessary to march against the Novgorodians for their "retreat". The question arose whether to advance immediately or wait until winter. The Novgorod land is replete with lakes, rivers, impenetrable swamps, and therefore the former grand dukes in summer tried not to go to Novgorod on campaigns, and whoever did, lost a lot of people. Still, they decided to speak out immediately, and Ivan III took up the orders before his departure. He left Moscow to his son Ivan the Young, with him ordered his brother Andrei Vasilyevich the Elder to be with him, along with the Tatar service Tsarevich Murtoza. The Grand Duke took with him on the campaign the brothers Yuri, Andrey Menshoy and Boris, Prince Mikhail Andreyevich Vereisky with his son, and another Tatar servant Tsarevich Danyar.

Immediately, messengers flew from Moscow to Tver and Vyatka with the order to go to Novgorod. Both the Principality of Tver and the Vyatka Territory possessed significant armed forces, and if they had supported Veliky Novgorod, Ivan would not have found little. But, alas, the avarice and cowardice of the Tver prince Mikhail Borisovich and the greed of the Vyatchans (Khlynovtsy) decided the matter. They supported Moscow with all their might. Very little time passed, and the Grand Duke of Moscow thanked the allies according to their merits. In September 1485, Ivan III laid siege to Tver. On September 15, the city capitulated, and Ivan III presented the Tver principality to his eldest son Ivan the Young.

After 4 years, Ivan III will deal with Vyatka. The Moscow army together with the detachment of the Kazan Khan Makhmet-Alin on August 16, 1489 will besiege Khlynov (Vyatka). The city will be forced to surrender. With Khlynov, Ivan III will do the same as with Veliky Novgorod - the mass executions will be followed by the total eviction of the townspeople to Borovsk, Aleksin, Kremenets, Dmitrov, etc. In turn, part of the population of these cities will be sent to Vyatka, to places "not so distant" for them.

But all this will be later, and now the Khlynovites have sent an army to Novgorod. The Moscow army went to the republic through the Tver principality, and Mikhail Borisovich undertook to provide him with food and everything he needed. On the way, Ivan III was joined by the Tver army under the command of Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Mikulinsky.

At the insistence of Ivan III, his "younger brother" Pskov also opposed Novgorod. (Ivan's son Vasily III will end up with Pskov).

The offensive of Ivan's troops was accompanied by unprecedented psychological pressure on the Novgorodians from the pro-Moscow party. The Solovetsky hermit Zosima walked around Novgorod and declared that at the feast at the Boretskys he saw the most noble boyars without heads. (Subsequently, Ivan III will execute them). Someone said that blood was seen on the coffins of two Novgorod archbishops, who were resting in the Martyrievo porch at St. Sophia; the bells of the Khutynsky Savior rang by themselves; in the convent of Euphemia in the church on the icon of the Mother of God, tears rolled from the eyes like a stream; noticed tears on the icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Nikitinskaya Street, and on Fedorovaya Street water poured from the branches and from the top of the poplar trees (willow trees), and it was like tears.

Rumors spread throughout Novgorod that Martha Boretskaya was marrying a Lithuanian prince, and even mythical candidates were named. Suppose there was at least a conversation, even a line in a letter from Martha, immediately or later Moscow would blame her and ring all the bells.

Moscow clerks and chroniclers lied as best they could: “The infidels do not know God from the beginning; and these Novgorodians had been in Christianity for so many years and in the end began to retreat to Latinism; the Grand Duke went to them not as Christians, but as foreign pagans and apostates from Orthodoxy; they departed not only from their sovereign, but from the Lord God himself; just as before his great-grandfather, Grand Duke Demetrius, armed himself against the godless Mamai, so the faithful Grand Duke John went against these apostates. "

So, Novgorodians who want to live according to the customs of their fathers and grandfathers, who protect their property and lives, are compared to Khan Mamai, who is going to plunder Russia. Rhetorical question, who is more like Mamai - Martha Boretskaya or Ivan III? Well, okay, let's forgive the Moscow clerk, after all, he was paid money, but for disobedience they could even blow his head off. But the serious historian S. M. Soloviev prefaces the above quotation from the Moscow chronicle with his conclusion: “And before, the annals reflect the reluctance of the northeastern population to Novgorod; but now, when describing the campaign of 1471, we notice a strong bitterness. "

How could Soloviev agree that the Novgorodians had renounced Orthodoxy and "the Lord God himself"? But in the same book III of the writings of Sergei Mikhailovich it is said that by 1470, Kiev, which was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for more than 150 years, was an Orthodox city on the whole, and there were fewer Catholics in it than Germans in 1469. Novgorod.

On June 29, Ivan III entered Torzhok with his army. And on July 14, on the Sheloni River, a battle between Muscovites and Novgorodians took place. The official chronicler claims that there were 4 thousand Muscovites, and 40 thousand Novgorodians (maybe it was only about Muscovites, and Tatars, Tverichi, etc. were not taken into account). Meanwhile, it was the blow of the Tatar troops to the rear of the Novgorodians that decided the outcome of the battle. I note that the low morale of the Novgorod army also played an important role here. So, the "lord's regiment" did not take part in the battle at all, and his soldiers calmly watched as the Tatars killed their fellow countrymen.

Ivan III ordered the execution of the most noble Novgorodians taken prisoner on Sheloni - the son of Martha Boretskaya Dmitry, Vasily Seleznev-Guba, Cyprian Arbuziev and the archbishop's chalice Jeremiah Sukhoshek.

At the end of July, Moscow troops approached Novgorod. In the city itself, the "fifth column" was in full swing. A certain Upadysh with his comrades hammered fifty cannons on the walls with iron at night before they were seized by the watchmen. The traitors were torn to pieces by the people, but it was already impossible to put the guns into operation.

Novgorod capitulated. By order of the Grand Duke of Moscow, two contractual letters were drawn up. According to them, Novgorod renounced the alliance with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, pledged not to accept the enemies and all the villains of the Grand Duke (namely, Shemyaka's son Ivan Mozhaisky and Vasily Yaroslavich Borovsky). Now only the Moscow Metropolitan could appoint a bishop in Novgorod. Novgorodians pledged not to take revenge on all participants in the "fifth column". Novgorod was losing part of its northeastern possessions. And, of course, the townspeople had to pay 15.5 thousand rubles "for misconduct".

Unlike the previous treaties between Novgorod and the Great Principalities of Vladimir and Moscow, the treaty featured not one, but two Moscow princes - Ivan Vasilievich and Ivan Ivanovich. The fact is that Ivan III was suspicious, and just in case he crowned his son.

November 23, 1475 Ivan III arrived in Novgorod. In addition to the usual extortions, the prince ordered to seize several dozen noble Novgorodians who were disagreeable to him and send them in chains to Moscow, and from their families another fifteen hundred rubles were ripped off.

How much the Grand Duke acquired in Novgorod this time is unknown, since he took in parts. For example, Vladyka Theophilus presented Ivan "three sets of cloth, 100 shipwrights (ducats), a fish tooth, and two barrels of wine on the way." And the mayor Foma Andreevich Kuryatnik, together with the tysyatsky, brought Ivan a thousand rubles from the whole of Veliky Novgorod.

On January 26, 1471, the Grand Duke left Novgorod and was already in Moscow on February 8 (it is faster to get to the sled route). And in March, Vladyka Theophilus came to Moscow with the boyars to ask for the release of the imprisoned Novgorodians. Ivan received Vladyka well, treated him, but did not release a single prisoner.

Several Novgorod boyars also arrived in Moscow to seek court from the Grand Duke, since in Novgorod they did not count on success in their civil lawsuits. Among them was the former mayor Vasily Nikiforovich Penkov. And then Ivan III made a cunning move - he demanded that the Novgorod boyars swear allegiance to him as sovereign. So, on February 27, 1477 to Ivan III with a petition came the podvost Nazar and the clerk of the vecha Zakhar. In Moscow they were mistaken for ambassadors from the lord and from the whole of Veliky Novgorod. Nazar and Zakhar called the Grand Duke and his son sovereigns, not masters. (With the assertion of the autocracy, titles gained enormous importance, which later played a significant role in the state history of Russia, and more than once served as a pretext for wars.) The Grand Duke immediately found fault with the phrase of the Novgorodians, and when asked about the title, he became a pretext for reprisals over Novgorod. He sent his ambassadors to Novgorod, boyars Fyodor Davidovich and Ivan Tuchkov, and clerk Vasily Dalmatov specifically on this issue.

Having called the veche, the grand-ducal ambassadors said: "The Grand Duke ordered to ask Novgorod: what state does he want?" "We don't want any state!" - shouted the agitated Novgorodians. “But Veliky Novgorod, - the ambassadors continued, - sent their ambassadors, Nazar and Zakhar, to the Grand Duke from the lord and from all the people of Veliky Novgorod, to beat the state with their foreheads, and the ambassadors called the Grand Duke sovereign.” “Veche didn’t send anyone! - shouted the Novgorodians. - Veche never called the Grand Duke sovereign! From the ages there was no such thing as our land became, so that we would call some prince a sovereign. And what the Grand Duke was told that we were sending is a lie! "

The Novgorodians asked the grand-ducal ambassadors to explain to them what change would be when Novgorod called the Grand Duke sovereign instead of the lord. They said: "If you called him tsar, it means you wondered for him, and there should be his court in Veliky Novgorod, and his tiuns should sit on all the streets, and give Yaroslav's court to the Grand Duke, and do not intervene in his courts!"

The Novgorodians finally guessed that they wanted to deprive them of their last rights and shouted: “How dare you go to Moscow to judge and swear allegiance to the Grand Duke, as to the sovereign! and to judge in Novgorod! Let those who went to litigate come here! "

On May 31, they brought Vasily Nikiforov Penkov and Zakhar Ovinov to the veche. “Revetnik! - shouted the Novgorodians at Vasily. "You were at the Grand Duke's and kissed the cross on us!" Vasily replied: "I was with the Grand Duke and kissed the cross for him that I want to serve me, the great sovereign, with righteousness and goodness, and not with my sovereign Novgorod the Great and not with you, my lord and brethren!" Then they "pressed" Zakhar, and he pointed to Vasily that he was kissing the cross on behalf of Novgorod.

The form of the oath adopted in Moscow was not known in Novgorod before the destruction of the veche. Its text was very subservient, unusual for free people, as the Novgorodians considered themselves to be. The sworn oath in Moscow pledged, in case of need, to act against Novgorod and inform the Grand Duke of any resistance to him or ill will.

Right there at the veche the people beat Vasily and Zakhar to death. The Novgorod authorities kept the grand-ducal ambassadors in Novgorod for 6 weeks and then gave them the following answer: “We beat our masters to the grand princes, but we do not call them sovereigns; the judgment of your governors in the old days, at the Settlement; but we will not have your princely court, and we will not have your tiunas; we will not give you the courtyard of Yaroslavov. As we ended the world on Korostynya and kissed the cross, so at that end we want to live with you; and with those who acted without our knowledge, you, sir, divorce yourself: as you want, so are their executions; but we, too, where we catch, there we will execute; and we beat you, our masters, with our foreheads, so that they hold us in the old days, by kissing the cross. "

Since the summer of 1471 was dry as never before, Ivan III expected autumn. On November 23, Ivan with his army was already at Sytin, 30 versts from Novgorod. Here Vladyka Theophilus with the mayor and ordinary people came to him and began to beat him with his forehead: “Mister sovereign prince the great Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia! You put your anger on your fatherland, on Veliky Novgorod, your sword and fire are walking on the Novgorod land, Christian blood is pouring, have mercy on your fatherland, quit the sword, quench the fire so that Christian blood does not flow: lord sovereign, perhaps! Yes, you put disgrace on the boyars of Novgorod and brought them to Moscow on your first visit: have mercy, let them go to your homeland in Novgorod the Great. "

The Grand Duke did not answer the ambassadors, but invited them to dine. Then the next day the Novgorod ambassadors went to the brother of Ivan III Andrei Menshiy, brought gifts and asked him to put in a word to the Grand Duke for Novgorod. Then the ambassadors went to Ivan III with a request to tell the boyars to talk. The Grand Duke sent three boyars to them "to talk". The ambassadors offered them the following conditions: that the Grand Duke should travel to Novgorod for the fourth year and take 1,000 rubles each; If the court would have ordered the court to judge its governor and mayor in the city, and what they cannot cope with, then the Grand Duke would have judged when he himself arrived in the fourth year, but he would not have summoned him to Moscow. So that the Grand Duke would not order his governors to judge the ruling and mayor's courts, so that the grand-prince's subjects in their litigation with the Novgorodians would be judged before the governor and mayor, and not at the Gorodishche. Instead of answering, Ivan III ordered his governors to approach Novgorod, occupy the Settlement and suburban monasteries.

On November 27, the Moscow army was at the walls of the city. On December 4, Vladyka Theophilus came to the Moscow camp with the mayors and ordinary people and beat his foreheads so that the sovereign would grant him, showed his fatherland how God would put it in his heart to favor his fatherland. The answer was the same: "Our fatherland wants to beat us with his forehead, and she knows how to beat us with his forehead." The ambassadors returned to Novgorod, and the next day they came to Ivan with a confession that indeed Novgorod had sent Nazar and Zakhar to Moscow to call the Grand Duke sovereign. “If so,” Ivan ordered to answer them, “if you, Vladyka, and our whole fatherland, Veliky Novgorod, have declared themselves guilty before us and ask how our state can be in our homeland, Novgorod, then we declare that we want the same state and in Novgorod, like in Moscow. "

On December 7, during the next visit of the ambassadors, Ivan III explained what he wanted: “Our state is like this, there will be no veche bell in Novgorod; there will be no mayor, but we should keep the state; Volosts, villages for us to own, as we own in the Land of the Lower, so that we have something to be in our fatherland, and our lands are yours, and you give them to us; Do not be afraid of the conclusion, we do not intervene in the boyar estates, but the court will be in the old days, as the court stands in the ground. " The Novgorodians were forced to agree.

Then the Moscow boyars turned to the Novgorodians: "The Grand Duke told you to say: Veliky Novgorod must give us volosts and villages, without that we cannot keep our state in Veliky Novgorod." Novgorod offered the boyars two volosts: Luke the Great and Rzhev Empty, but the Grand Duke did not agree. Then they offered ten volosts, and then Ivan III refused. The Novgorodians suggested that the prince himself appoint how many volosts he needed. Ivan was not at a loss and appointed half of the Vladyka's and monastery's volosts and all Novotorzhsky volosts, whoever they were.

Then the tribute negotiations began. At first, the Grand Duke wanted to take half a hryvny from the fries. There was one man plowing on one horse in Novgorod. Three obzhi made up a plow, plowing on three horses, and one-third also made up a plow.

On January 20, 1478, Ivan III appointed Ivan and Yaroslav Vasilievich Obolensky as his governors in the city. Before leaving, the Grand Duke ordered to seize the merchant headman Mark Panfiliev, the noblewoman Martha Boretskaya with her grandson Vasily Fedorov, and five more noble Novgorodians, and take them to Moscow, and Ivan cleaned up their estates for himself. Also, all contracts ever concluded between Novgorodians and Lithuanian princes were seized.

On February 17, Ivan left Novgorod and on March 5 arrived in Moscow. A veche bell was brought to Moscow for him and raised to the bell tower on the Kremlin square.

After that, it seemed to the Novgorodians that the Grand Duke had left them alone. But, alas, on October 26, 1479, Ivan III again moved to Novgorod allegedly "in peace", fortunately, the Novgorodians did not give any reasons for war. However, approaching Novgorod, Ivan ordered to open artillery fire (commanded by the "cannon squad" Aristotle Fiorovanti). From the moment of his arrival in Moscow in 1475, Aristotle performed the duties of General Feldzheichmeister, speaking in the language of the 18th - early 20th centuries. Aristotle designed cannons, poured and forged them, taught how to shoot cannons and control the fire of guns in battle.

After several days of bombardment, the city gates opened and the Vladyka and the clergy emerged from there, carrying crosses and icons, followed by a mayor, a thousand, the elders of the five ends, boyars and many people. All fell on their faces before the Grand Duke and prayed for mercy and forgiveness. Ivan III told them: “I, your sovereign, give peace to all innocent people in this evil; fear nothing. " Nevertheless, having occupied the city, Ivan ordered the capture of over fifty Novgorodians and subjected them to terrible torture. "It was only then that the Grand Duke learned about the Vladyka's participation in the conspiracy and about the relations of his brothers with the Novgorodians."

Our great historian wrote this quite seriously. Both Ivan III and his "ferocious grandson" Ivan IV thought very little about the logic of their accusations. In 1569 Ivan the Terrible accused the inhabitants of Novgorod of giving "Novgorod and Pskov to the king of Lithuania, and the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia wanted to exterminate all Russia, and put Prince Volodymyr Ondreevich in the state."

The casket opened simply - Ivan III and his grandson needed money and a lot of money, and at the same time prepare material for reprisals against their brothers. In particular, Ivan III dreamed of getting into the archbishop's treasury. Of course, the cowardly Theophilus was not involved in anything.

The charges revealed under torture gave rise to the arrest of Theophilus. He was sent into captivity in the Moscow Miracle Monastery, all the archbishop's wealth was taken to Moscow. Instead of Theophilos, at the behest of Ivan III, Metropolitan Gerontius installed the Moscow Archpriest Simeon, who was renamed at consecration to Sergius. Sergius behaved arrogantly with the Novgorodians and treated the local clergy. Soon Sergius began to be tormented by visions. First in a dream, and then in reality, the long-deceased Novgorod rulers (archbishops) began to come to him. “Why, madman,” they said, “why did you dare to accept the appointment of our hierarchy, in the place of the desecrated, unrighteously overthrown and still living ruler? Not according to the rules you dared to sit on the martyr's throne! Leave him alone!". At first Sergius was strong, but then strange things appeared in his behavior. Either he "comes out of his cell without a mantle, then he sits under the Church of St. Sophia or at the Evfimievskaya porch and looks meaningless." The matter ended with the fact that Sergius was completely speechless. The Moscow authorities officially announced that the Novgorodians took away his mind by magic.

On June 26, 1484, Sergius was taken to the Trinity Monastery near Moscow. Ivan III took up the selection of candidates for the place of Sergius. The best turned out to be the Chudovsky Archimandrite Gennady Gonzov, since the archimandrite "and gave from that (for the appointment) dvili thousands of rubles to the Great Prince." Gennady went to Novgorod. And the weak Sergius, returning to the Trinity Monastery, came to his senses and lived for another 20 years. Apparently, even such a pro-Moscow-minded clergyman was horrified by the outrages perpetrated by the Moscow governors Yakov Zakharievich and Yuri Zakharievich Koshkin in Novgorod.

In 1487, on the denunciation of Yakov Zakharievich, Ivan III expelled fifty families of the best merchants from Novgorod and transferred them to Vladimir. The following year, Yakov and Yuri discover a "terrible" conspiracy of Novgorodians who wanted to kill the brothers. In Novgorod, mass executions begin - who is hanged, who is beheaded. On the denunciation of the Zakharievichs, Ivan III ordered to evict seven thousand living people (homeowners) from Novgorod and settle them in Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir and other cities. In the next 1489, Ivan III ordered to evict all the other (indigenous) living people from Novgorod. They were also resettled in central Russia, and many were killed on the way. Carts with immigrants from all over Russia arrived at the place of the exiled Novgorodians.

On this occasion, N. I. Kostomarov wrote: “This is how the Moscow sovereign Novgorod finished off, and almost wiped out a separate northern nationality from the ground. Most of the people in the parishes were exterminated during two devastating campaigns. The entire city was evicted. The place of the expelled old-timers was taken by new settlers from Moscow and Nizovaya Zemlya. Landowners who did not die during the devastation were also almost all evicted; others fled to Lithuania. "

Needless to say, in the 80s of the 15th century, the overwhelming majority of foreign merchants left Novgorod, who had previously occupied an entire quarter in the city - the “German court”. Undoubtedly, there was a lot of riot in free Novgorod, but foreigners were reliably protected from it. The Novgorodians could enter the same "German yard" only during the day. The strict order in commercial transactions was replaced by the atrocities of the Zakharievichs. And there was no one to trade with - all the partners of foreign merchants were executed or expelled from Novgorod.

So the trade ties of Novgorod the Great collapsed, delivering huge funds to the republic. Ivan III "slaughtered the goose that lays the golden eggs."

In general, for the history of Russia, the destruction of trade relations of Novgorod, and 30 years later, and Pskov led in fact to the isolation of Russia for 200 years from Western Europe. In the west, Russia was fenced off from Europe by hostile Lithuania and Poland, in the south - by the Ottoman Empire. The northwestern window to Europe was boarded up by Ivan III himself, and at the beginning of the 17th century, the Swedes only repaired the cracks.

Notes:

Notes (edit)

1 The official division of the churches into Orthodox and Catholic took place in 1054, but the actual split was already in the 9th century. For the convenience of the reader, hereinafter, I will refer to the Western clergy as the clergy, subordinate to the Pope, and, accordingly, the Eastern clergy - the shepherds, subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

12 Here it is worth noting an interesting detail: hereinafter, Russians and Poles swear and reconcile, understanding each other without translators, which serves as reliable proof of the extreme closeness of the ancient Russian and Polish languages.

13 River south of Kiev.

127 Soloviev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book. III. P. 17.

128 Ibid.

129 Vladychny regiment - a squad supported by church funds and subordinated directly to Vladyka Theophilus.

130 In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such an incapacitation of smooth-bore muzzle-loading guns was called "drive the ruff". As you can see, Upadysh and the company acted competently and professionally.

131 Martha Boretskaya spent the rest of her life in Moscow prisons and monasteries. They buried her in the Mlevsko-Troitsky monastery on the river. Solid. Currently, the place of her burial has been lost.

132 Soloviev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book. III. P. 33.

133 Ivan III did not collect dirt on his brothers in vain. On September 19, 1491, Andrey Vasilyevich Bolshoi was accused of treason, put in prison and by November 1493 he would starve to death. Together with Prince Andrey, his children, fifteen-year-old Ivan and seven-year-old Dmitry, will be imprisoned. Ivan spent over 30 years in prison in chains and died on May 19, 1522 in Vologda. Dmitry spent 49 (!) Years in prison in Pereyaslavl. On December 20, 1540, the Boyar Duma, on behalf of the ten-year-old Ivan IV, released the sufferer, but he died a few months later.

134 In those days one could buy 200 poods of wheat for a ruble.